Life Science Logistics, LLC v. Claudia Smith / Summit Publishing
Claim Number: FA1608001686615
Complainant is Life Science Logistics, LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Philip I. Frankel of Bond, Schoeneck & King, PLLC, New York, USA. Respondent is Claudia Smith / Summit Publishing (“Respondent”), Illinois, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <lifescienceslogistics.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.
The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially, and, to the best of his knowledge, has no conflict of interests in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Terry F. Peppard as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on August 2, 2016; the Forum received payment on August 2, 2016.
On August 3, 2016, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <lifescienceslogistics.com> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, LLC registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On August 4, 2016, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 24, 2016 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@lifescienceslogistics.com. Also on August 4, 2016, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts.
Having received no response from Respondent, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On September 1, 2016, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Terry F. Peppard as sole Panelist in this proceeding.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant does business under the mark Life Science Logistics, offering warehousing and distribution services and supply chain account management, specializing in the supply of medical devices and pharmaceuticals.
Complainant holds a registration for the service mark LIFE SCIENCE LOGISTICS, which is on file with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Registry No. 4,274,304, registered January 15, 2013).
Respondent registered the domain name <lifescienceslogistics.com> on November 10, 2014.
The domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s LIFE SCIENCE LOGISTICS mark.
Respondent has not been commonly known by the <lifescienceslogistics.com> domain name.
Respondent fails to make a bona fide offering of goods or services by means of the domain name or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of it.
The website resolving from the domain name is used to provide services such as packaging for the medical/pharmaceutical industry in the same category of services as are offered by Complainant.
Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name.
Respondent’s use of the domain name drives traffic away from Complainant’s legitimate website by creating confusion among Internet users as to the possibility of Complainant’s association with the domain name.
Respondent knew of Complainant and its rights in the LIFE SCIENCE LOGISTICS mark when it registered the domain name.
Respondent registered and uses the <lifescienceslogistics.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
(1) the domain name registered by Respondent is confusingly similar to a service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
(2) Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(3) the same domain name was registered and is being used by Respondent in bad faith.
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable."
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred:
i. the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
ii. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
iii. the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel will, pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules, decide this proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations, and, pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, draw such inferences as it deems appropriate. The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations and inferences set out in the Complaint as true unless the evidence is clearly contradictory. See Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Forum July 31, 2000) (finding that a respondent’s failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of a UDRP complaint to be deemed true). See also Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009 (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000): “In the absence of a response, it is appropriate to accept as true all allegations of the Complaint.”
Complainant has rights in the LIFE SCIENCE LOGISTICS service mark for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) by reason of its registration of the mark with a national trademark authority, the USPTO. See T-Mobile USA, Inc. dba MetroPCS v. Ryan G Foo / PPA Media Services, FA 1627542 (Forum Aug. 9, 2015) (finding, under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), that a UDRP Complainant had rights in the METROPCS mark through its registration of the mark with the USPTO).
Turning to the central question posed by Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), we conclude from a review of the record that Respondent’s <lifescienceslogistics.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s LIFE SCIENCE LOGISTICS service mark. The domain name contains the mark in its entirety, with only the deletion of the spaces between the terms of the mark and the addition of the letter “s” and of the generic Top Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com.” These alterations of the mark, made in forming the domain name, do not save it from the realm of confusing similarity under the standards of the Policy. See, for example, Paperless Inc. v. ICS Inc, FA 1629515 (Forum Aug. 17, 2015) (finding confusing similarity between the domain name <paperlessspost.com> and the PAPERLESS POST trademark where the domain name contained the entire mark and an additional “s”).
See also Bond & Co. Jewelers, Inc. v. Tex. Int’l Prop. Assocs., FA 937650 (Forum Apr. 30, 2007) (finding that the elimination of spaces between the terms of the mark of another and the addition to it of a gTLD in creating a domain name did not establish distinctiveness between the domain name and that mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)).
Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must make a prima facie showing that Respondent lacks rights to and legitimate interests in a disputed domain name, whereupon the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have such rights or interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 18, 2006) (finding that a UDRP complainant must make a prima facie case that a respondent lacks rights to or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name under UDRP ¶ 4(a)(ii) before the burden shifts to that respondent to show that it does have such rights or interests). See also AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 25, 2006):
Complainant must … make a prima facie showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names, which burden is light. If Complainant satisfies its burden, … the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain names.
Complainant has made out a sufficient prima facie showing under this head of the Policy. Respondent’s failure to respond to the Complaint therefore permits us to infer that Respondent does not have rights to or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. See Desotec N.V. v. Jacobi Carbons AB, D2000-1398 (WIPO Dec. 21, 2000) (finding that a respondent’s failure to respond to a UDRP complaint allows a presumption that a complainant’s allegations are true unless clearly contradicted by the evidence). Nonetheless, we will examine the record before us, in light of the considerations set out in Policy ¶ 4(c), to determine whether there is in it any basis for concluding that Respondent has rights to or legitimate interests in the contested domain name which are cognizable under the Policy.
We begin by noting that Complainant contends, and Respondent does not deny,
that Respondent has not been commonly known by the domain name <lifescienceslogistics.com>. Moreover, the pertinent WHOIS information identifies the registrant of the domain name only as “Claudia Smith / Summit Publishing,” which does not resemble the domain name. On this record, we conclude that Respondent has not been commonly known by the disputed <lifescienceslogistics.com> domain name so as to have acquired rights to or legitimate interests in it within the purview of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See, for example, Google Inc. v. Domain Admin / Whois Privacy Corp., FA1502001605239 (Forum March 22, 2015):
[The] WHOIS information for the at-issue domain name lists ‘Domain Admin / Whois Privacy Corp.’ as the domain name’s registrant and there is nothing in the record that otherwise suggests Respondent is commonly known by the … [subject]… domain name. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
We next observe that Complainant asserts, without objection from Respondent, that Respondent fails to use the <lifescienceslogistics.com> domain name to provide a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, in that the website resolving from the domain name is used by Respondent to provide services such as packaging for the medical and pharmaceutical industries in the same category of services as are offered by Complainant, thus operating in competition with the business of Complainant. This employment of the domain name is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) so as to confirm in Respondent rights to or legitimate interests in the contested domain name as provided in those sections of the Policy. On the point, see General Motors LLC v. MIKE LEE, FA 1659965 (Forum March 10, 2016) finding that:
[U]se of a domain to sell products and/or services that compete directly with a complainant’s business does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).
The Panel therefore finds that Complainant has satisfied the proof requirements of Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
We are persuaded by the evidence that Respondent’s use of the disputed <lifescienceslogistics.com> domain name as alleged in the Complaint is an attempt to employ a domain name that is confusingly similar to Complainant’s LIFE SCIENCE LOGISTICS service mark by creating confusion among Internet users as to the possibility of Complainant’s association with the domain name, and thus to profit commercially. Under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv), this stands as proof of Respondent’s bad faith in registering and using the domain name. See Allianz of Am. Corp. v. Bond, FA 680624 (Forum June 2, 2006) (finding bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where a respondent used a contested domain name to divert to its own website Internet users searching for the website of a UDRP complainant, likely profiting in the process).
We are also convinced by the evidence that Respondent registered the <lifescienceslogistics.com> domain name while knowing of Complainant and its rights in the LIFE SCIENCE LOGISTICS mark. This too demonstrates Respondent’s bad faith in registering the domain name. See Orbitz Worldwide, LLC v. Domain Librarian, FA 1535826 (Forum Feb. 6, 2014):
[A]s sufficient grounds for finding Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) bad faith, the Panel here finds actual knowledge [on the part of respondent] through the name used for the domain and the use made of it.
For these reasons, the Panel finds that Complainant has met its obligations of proof under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Complainant having established all three elements required to be proven under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that the relief requested must be, and it is hereby, GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <lifescienceslogistics.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED forthwith from Respondent to Complainant.
Terry F. Peppard, Panelist
Dated: September 6, 2016
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page