YETI Coolers, LLC v. Anthony Wegmann
Claim Number: FA1608001689991
Complainant is YETI Coolers, LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Katherine Laatsch Fink of Banner & Witcoff, Ltd., Illinois, USA. Respondent is Anthony Wegmann (“Respondent”), Texas, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <yeticoat.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.
The undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his or her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Mrs Prathiba M Singh as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on August 19, 2016; the Forum received payment on August 19, 2016.
On August 19, 2016, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <yeticoat.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 19, 2016, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 8, 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@yeticoat.com. Also on August 19, 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.
A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on September 6, 2016.
On September 20 2016, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Mrs Prathiba M Singh as Panelist.
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.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant, YETI Coolers, LLC (“YETI”), contends that it owns over 100 active worldwide trademark applications and registrations that encompass “YETI,” including registrations for YETI, YETI COOLERS, YETI TANK, YETI COLSTER, and YETI RAMBLER COLSTER for its products. These applications and registrations are in many countries including, but not limited to, the United States, Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, European Community, India, Japan, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, Philippines, Russia, South Africa, Switzerland, Thailand, and United Arab Emirates. YETI also owns substantial common law rights in and to its marks YETI, YETI COOLERS, YETI HOPPER, YETI RAMBLER, YETI TANK, YETI COLSTER, and YETI RAMBLER COLSTER. YETI’s active registrations for the YETI Mark in the U.S. and internationally, with priority dates that predate the registration of the YETICOAT.COM domain are given at pages 3-4 of the Complaint and as Exhibit 4. (Copies of the registration certificates and relevant assignment documents for the charted registrations are attached as Exhibit 4). Complainant contends rights in the YETI mark inter alia through registration of the mark with the USPTO (Reg. No. 3203869 registered Jan 30, 2007). U.S. Trademark Registration No. 3203869 for the mark YETI is active and “incontestable” under U.S. law.
YETI’s active applications for the YETI Mark in the U.S. with priority dates that predate the registration of the YETICOAT.COM domain are at pages 5-7 of the Complaint. Copies of the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s Trademark Status & Document Retrieval (TSDR) summary sheets for each of the pending applications are attached as Exhibit 5.
The Complainant states that because of the fame and renown of YETI and the “YETI” Mark, cybersquatters frequently seek to register domain names featuring the “YETI” Mark and YETI has defended itself against cybersquatting, and has recovered many domain names from cybersquatters, details of which have been given at pages 7-8 of the Complaint.
YETI operates websites at the URLs YETICOOLERS.COM and YETI.COM that receive substantial traffic from persons seeking information about YETI and to purchase its portable coolers, insulated beverage ware, clothing, and other available products.
As part of its business, YETI became the registrant of the domain name YETICOOLERS.COM in 2006, and the registrant of the domain name YETI.COM in 2015. Attached as Exhibit 6 are printouts of WHOIS records for these domain names.
Respondent, “Anthony Wegmann,” is the currently-listed registrant for the domain name YETICOAT.COM (the “Disputed Domain Name”) (See Exhibit 7, current WHOIS record for YETICOAT.COM). Respondent lists an address of “801 St. Emanuel, Houston, Texas 77003 US” (Id.).
Complainant contends that Respondent uses the Disputed Domain Name to link to a website (“Respondent’s Website”) containing hyperlinks which in turn link to direct competitors of Complainant and from which Respondent presumably nets pay-per-click profits. Exhibit 8 is a screenshot of Respondent’s Website featuring links to competitive product offerings, including the “Personalized Tumblers” link, which resolves to https://mykappstudio.com/, offering products for sale and information about products that directly compete with YETI’s goods. Exhibit 9 is a screenshot of the resolving https://mykappstudio.com/. Complainant contends that YETI does not have, nor has it ever had, any relationship or association with Respondent. YETI has not authorized Respondent to use YETI’s YETI Mark, or to register domain names incorporating the YETI Mark.
[a.] The domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights; UDRP Rule 3(b)(ix)(1); UDRP Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant states that YETI owns trademark registrations and common law rights in the YETI Mark, as evidenced by the Registrations attached as Exhibit 4 and trademark applications attached as Exhibit 5. It is contended that the Disputed Domain Name, YETICOAT.COM, is confusingly similar to the YETI Mark because the Disputed Domain Name includes the entirety of the YETI Mark in combination with the generic terms “coat” and “.com.” In Sutton Group Fin. Servs. Ltd. v. Rodger, D2005-0126 (WIPO June 27, 2005) it was held that the domain name was confusingly similar because the addition of descriptive or non-distinctive elements to the distinctive element in a domain name is immaterial. Further, it is contended that the additional term “.com” in the Disputed Domain Name has no impact on the question of whether the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the YETI Mark because it corresponds to a required signifier of common generic Top Level Domains (“gTLDs”). See Research in Motion Ltd. v. Input Inc, Domain Manager, D2011-2197 (WIPO Mar. 13, 2012) (holding that “[t]he top level domain of the disputed domain name is to be ignored for the purposes of assessing similarity as it is a functional requirement of the domain name system).
Complainant’s website, YETI.COM, states that it started its products in 2006 and shows that its products are “Built for close calls in far-flung places. Built for tall tales and epic adventures. Built for finding comfort well outside comfort zones. Built for the wild”. This is a probable reason for it choosing the mark, YETI, which is a large hairy creature resembling a human or bear, said to live in the highest part of the Himalayas.
The inclusion of the generic term “coat” in the Disputed Domain Name does not mitigate the confusing similarity between YETICOAT.COM and Compainant’s YETI Mark, because it is merely descriptive and generic, and therefore does not defeat a claim of confusing similarity. See Amusement Art, LLC v. zarathustra james / bomit, FA1312001536201 (Forum Jan. 29, 2014) holding that the domain name <mrbrainwashclothing.com> is confusingly similar to the complainant’s MR BRAINWASH trademark); see also, Dixie Consumer Products LLC v. Private Whois dixiecup.com, FA 1112001419529 (Forum Jan. 27, 2012) finding that the domain was confusingly similar to complainant’s mark because “the disputed domain name consists only of the DIXIE mark, the descriptive term ‘cup,’ and the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) ‘.com.’ … [and] adding a descriptive term to a complainant’s mark does not defeat a claim of confusing similarity”); see also Mead Johnson & Company, LLC v. Noom Kung, FA1309001521731 (Forum Oct. 24, 2013) holding that the addition of multiple terms, both generic and descriptive, do not negate a finding of confusing similarity); see also Chan Luu Inc. v. John Potter, FA1301001480370 (Forum Feb. 14, 2013) finding that the domain was confusingly similar to complainant’s mark where “Respondent [had] chosen to take Complainant’s CHAN LUU mark and to use it in its domain name, adding only the descriptive words ‘wrap’ and ‘sale’ after the CHAN LUU mark to create the domain name, thus implying that the domain name is an official domain name of Complainant leading to an official website of Complainant dealing with the sale of genuine CHANN LUU wraps).
It is contended that YETI owns several trademark registrations for YETI in connection with clothing. Further, YETI offers products, including clothing, to its customers under the YETI Mark. Therefore, the term “coat” in connection with the YETI Mark is descriptive and generic and describes YETI’s goods and services and is therefore confusingly similar.
Complainant states that thus the Disputed Domain Name, which includes the entirety of the YETI Mark, is confusingly similar to the YETI Mark and YETI has proven the first element of UDRP Policy ¶ 4(a).
[b.] Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; UDRP Rule 3(b)(ix)(2); UDRP Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name, YETICOAT.COM.
Complainant contends that to prove the second element of UDRP Policy ¶ 4(a), YETI only needs to establish a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights to and legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. Then the burden shifts to Respondent to prove that Respondent does have rights to or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006).
Complainant states that it does not have any relationship or association with Respondent. Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use it’s YETI Mark, or to register domain names incorporating the YETI Mark.
Further, it is contended that Respondent has not used and is not using the Disputed Domain Name “in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services” pursuant to UDRP Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), and has not made and is not “making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue” pursuant to UDRP Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). It is stated that when Internet users interested in YETI type the Disputed Domain Name into the address bar of web browsing software, they are unexpectedly directed to Respondent’s Website featuring links to third party websites offering products that compete with YETI’s goods and services. For example, clicking on the “Personalized Tumblers” link displayed at YETICOAT.COM as shown in Exhibit 8, links to a page offering beverage ware for sale, including products directly competing with YETI products, such as the stainless steel tumblers, shown in Exhibit 9.
In Bank of Am. Corp. v. Nw. Free Cmty. Access, FA 180704 (Forum Sept. 30, 2003), “Respondent’s demonstrated intent to divert Internet users seeking Complainant’s website to a website of Respondent and for Respondent’s benefit is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under [UDRP] Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and it is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under [UDRP] Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).” See also Am. Family Life Assurance Co. of Columbus v. defaultdata.com a/k/a Brian Wick, FA0208000123896 (Forum Oct. 14, 2002) finding that there were no rights or legitimate interests where “respondent, in choosing a domain name that at its essence completely incorporates [c]omplainant’s mark AFLAC and appends to it the generic term ‘insurance’, not only has intentionally sought to create a confusingly similar name but also is opportunistically exploiting Internet user confusion by diverting, through re‑direction and diversion, Internet users away from [c]omplainant’s site to [r]espondent’s web site for the latter’s own benefit.”).
Complainant relies upon Big Dog Holdings, Inc. v. Day, FA 93554 (FORUM Mar. 9, 2000) where there was a finding that there was no legitimate use when the respondent was diverting consumers to its own website by using complainant’s trademarks. Other panels have found that a respondent’s use of a disputed domain name to provide a website featuring competing hyperlinks is not qualifying activity under UDRP Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii). See, e.g., United Servs. Auto. Ass’n v. Savchenko, FA 1105728 (Forum Dec. 12, 2007).
Complainant also states that, pursuant to UDRP Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), nothing in the public record (including WHOIS records) suggests that Respondent is commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name. See Tercent Inc. v. Yi, FA 139720 (FORUM Feb. 10, 2003) (finding that the WHOIS information, and its failure to imply that respondent is commonly known by the Disputed Domain Names, is a factor in evaluating Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)); see also Gallup Inc. v. Amish Country Store, FA 96209 (Forum Jan. 23, 2001) (finding that respondent does not have rights in a domain name when respondent is not known by the mark).
Complainant states that YETI has met its burden under the second element in Policy ¶ 4(a), and has proven that Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name.
[c.] The domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith; UDRP Rule 3(b)(ix)(3); UDRP Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Complainant contends that Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name, YETICOAT.COM, in bad faith.
First, pursuant to UDRP Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii), Respondent has pointed the Disputed Domain Name to Respondent’s Website. Respondent’s Website offers links to third party suppliers offering products for sale that compete with YETI’s product offerings and accordingly disrupt YETI’s business. Internet users that intend to view and potentially purchase YETI’s products may end up buying competing products after mistakenly visiting Respondent’s Website. See EthnicGrocer.com, Inc. v. Latingrocer.com, FA 94384 (FORUM July 7, 2000) (finding of bad faith where the respondent’s sites pass users through to the respondent’s competing business); see also, EBAY, Inc. v. MEOdesigns, D2000-1368 (WIPO Dec. 15, 2000), finding the respondent registered and used the domain name “eebay.com” in bad faith where the respondent has used the domain name to promote competing auction sites); see also, S. Exposure v. S. Exposure, Inc., FA 94864 (Forum July 18, 2000) finding the respondent acted in bad faith by attracting Internet users to a website that competes with the complainant’s business); see also Am. Airlines, Inc. v. Tex. Int’l Prop. Associates, FA 914854 (Forum Apr. 10, 2007) finding that where the respondent’s website featured links to complainant’s and others’ websites, the respondent’s use of a Disputed Domain Names that was confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark constituted disruption to complainant’s business under UDRP Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)).
Secondly, further to UDRP Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv), Respondent is able to generate web traffic, and in turn realize a commercial gain, through the use of domain names which are confusingly similar to YETI’s YETI Mark. Respondent capitalizes on visitors’ mistaken belief that they are accessing information and products that YETI offers for sale. This business model constitutes registration and use of a domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
Complainant relies upon Zee TV USA, Inc. v. Siddiqi, FA 721969 (Forum July 18, 2006) to show that where the respondent engaged in bad faith registration and use by using a domain name that was confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark to offer links to third-party websites that offered services similar to those offered by the complainant). See also Allianz of Am. Corp. v. Bond, FA 680624 (FORUM June 2, 2006) finding bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the respondent was diverting Internet users searching for the complainant to its own website and likely profiting).
Finally it is contended that even if Respondent alleges that it did not have actual knowledge of the YETI Mark, YETI’s Registrations, including at least the Registrations in Exhibit 4, bestow upon Respondent constructive notice of YETI’s rights in the YETI Mark. Respondent’s registration of domain names that are confusingly similar to Complainant’s YETI Mark, in spite of Respondent’s actual or constructive knowledge of YETI’s rights in the mark, is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to UDRP Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Orange Glo Int’l v. Blume, FA 118313 (Forum Oct. 4, 2002) (“[C]omplainant’s OXICLEAN mark is listed on the Principal Register of the [U.S. Patent and Trademark Office], a status that confers constructive notice on those seeking to register or use the mark or any confusingly similar variation thereof.”).
Complainant contends that for the above reasons, YETI has proven that Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent responds as under:
(a) UDRP 4 (a) (i)
Respondent denies that it is trying to infringe upon any trade marks that Yeti Coolers LLC may have. It states that its yeticoat business is for car, truck and trailer undercoating and bed liners. It is a spray application which is a polyurethane coating. It is also developing a bed liner that has the look of having ‘hairs’ that acts as cushion in the truck bed. That is why it is called yeticoat because of hair appearance and its toughness.
(b) UDRP 4 (a) (ii)
Respondent states that this name and domain name will be used for goods and services that do not have anything to do with their trade marks. The website redirection is something that is set on Respondent’s Go Daddy account that automatically parks its domains until they are developed. Respondent contends that as soon as they received the Complaint it attempted to turn off the Godaddy Parking feature, however the domain was locked and it was unable to do so. It has no control of what advertising GoDaddy puts on those parked pages. Respondent is agreeable to turn that feature off until the website is finished.
(c) UDRP 4 (a) (iii)
Respondent contends that it registered the domain yeticoat.com in good faith to show the benefits of its undercoating and bed liner business. Respondent states that he did not intend this in bad faith and the reference to the advertising of Yeti Coolers LLC competitors on the domain name is due to an automated cash parking feature in Godaddy. Respondent is willing to turn that feature off.
Respondent states that it is using the word yeti in reference to the mythical yeti creature, not in reference Yeti Coolers LLC. It also states that there are many other companies that use the term for their products Blue Yeti, Microphones, yetigames.com.
The disputed domain name was registered on December 24, 2015.
The Panel finds that Respondent’s domain yeticoat.com is confusingly similar to the YETI mark for the purposes of Policy 4 (a) (i).
The Panel finds that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interest under Policy 4 (a) (ii).
The Panel finds that Respondent has acted in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).
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:
(1) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
(2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
Identical or Confusingly Similiar : Policy 4 (a) (i).
Complainant asserts rights in the YETI marks based on the registration with the USPTO eg. Reg. No. 3203,869 registered on Jan 30, 2007. Panels have held that registration of a mark with the USPTO is sufficient to demonstrate rights in the mark Trip Network Inc v. Alviera FA 914943 (FORUM Mar. 27, 2007).
Panels have held that the addition of a generic term to a mark in a domain does not distinguish a domain from a mark. See Morgan Stanley v. Eugene Sykorsky/ private person FA 1651901 (FORUM Jan. 19, 2016). Panels have held that the addition of gTLD “.com” is irrelevant to an analysis of confusing similarity under Policy 4 (a) (i) (Metro-Goldwyn –Mayer Studios Inc v. Antigua Domains FA 1073020 (Forum Oct. 17, 2007).
The Respondent makes no contentions with regard to Policy 4 (a) (i).
Thus, the Panel find that the Respondent’s domain yeticoat.com is confusingly similar to the YETI mark for the purposes of Policy 4 (a) (i).
Rights and Legitimate Interests : Policy 4 (a) (ii)
The first question that arises is the nature of monopoly that can be accorded to the Complainant surrounding the word YETI which refers to a creature existing in the Himalayas. It is not uncommon for manufacturers and traders to adopt pre-existing words and turn them into brands. There are several examples of the same for eg., APPLE, After Eight, Charlie, Hush Puppy, Caterpillar, Grey Goose, Jaguar, Red Bull, Dove, Puma, Grass Hopper, Camel, to name a few.
These words then get associated with a particular manufacturer or trader. While the original meaning is not lost, the secondary meaning also leads to the said manufacturer or trader who starts using it for a particular set of products and/or services. Once a secondary meaning is acquired, then the said mark is entitled to protection.
In the present case, Complainant has used the word YETI as its brand, mark and trading style. It has acquired, from the evidence on record, considerable reputation. It has also been registered as a trade mark in several jurisdictions. Thus, the said mark YETI is entitled to protection both due to statutory rights and also common law rights. Complainant has a legitimate interest in protecting YETI and all its derivatives, especially in respect of cognate and allied products/services. See Oglivy Group, Inc.d/b/a The Lacek Group v. Tony Y. Jackson Case, No. D 2010-2015, (holding that the Panel had no hesitation in finding that, in relation to the complainant’s mark, THE LACEK GROUP, used by the complainant for 18 years, the test had been satisfied. Complainant has provided services and conducted business under its mark since its founding. Through Complainant’s many years of consistent and continuous advertising, marketing and extensive use, Complainant’s mark has gained a secondary meaning and has come to be associated with Complainant’s services). See also Toyota Sunnyvale v. Adfero Publ’g Co., FA 921194 ( Forum Apr. 10, 2007), (holding the complainant’s TOYOTA SUNNYVALE mark had acquired secondary meaning sufficient for it to establish common law rights in the mark through continuous and extensive use of the mark since 2003 in connection with a car dealership under that mark).
Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interest in the disputed domain name under UDRP4 (a) (ii) before the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interest in domain name. Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006).
Complainant has stated that Respondent has no relationship or association with Complainant, and has not been authorized to use the YETI mark or been commonly known by the disputed domain name. WHOIS information associated with the domain name show that Respondent registered the domain name. See Alaska Air Group Inc and its subsidiary , Alaska Airlines v. Song Bin FA 1408001574905 (Forum Sept. 17, 2014) (holding respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name as demonstrated by the WHOIS information and that complainant had not licensed the respondent to use its mark).
The Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name.
Complainant contends that Respondent’s use of the domain name is not in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate non commercial or fair use, as Respondent’s domain name resolved to a website displaying various links to websites and products with titles such as “Personlised Tumblers” etc. It is contended that some of these products compete with the Complainant’s business selling tumblers and mugs. Panels have held that using a domain that is confusingly similar to a complainant’s mark to sell or advertise products that compete with a complainant is not a use that is in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See H-D Michigan Inc. v. Buell, FA 1106640 (Forum Jan. 2, 2008).
Respondent indirectly concedes that the website, as it exists, could create confusion owing to the nature of GoDaddy’s services. In any event, use of the mark YETI with or without any prefix or suffix, without any justification, points to lack of legitimate interest.
The Panel concludes that Respondent’s domain is not being used within the parameters of Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or ¶ 4(c)(iii).
Registration and Use in Bad Faith: Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Complainant claims that Respondent redirected the disputed domain to Respondent’s website offering links to third-party suppliers of products in competition with Complainant and disrupts Complainant’s business. Respondent’s domain links to a website hosting various commercial links, some of which offer products and services in competition with Complainant’s products.
Panels have held that a respondent competes and disrupts a complainant’s business where a domain resolves to a website hosting links to competing products and services. See United Servs. Auto. Ass’n v. Savchenko, FA 1105728 (Forum Dec. 12, 2007), where a respondent currently utilizes the disputed domain name, <usaa-insurance.net>, to resolve to a website featuring links to third-party competitors of a complainant, the Panel found such use established that the respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).”).
The Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).
Further, Respondent is commercially benefiting from the use of a domain that is confusingly similar to Complainant’s YETI mark demonstrates bad faith. Respondent’s domain resolves to a website hosting various commercial links, some of which offer products and services in competition with Complainant’s products (See Attached Ex. 8 & 9). Panels have found bad faith where a respondent used a confusingly similar domain to host commercial links from which respondent presumably benefitted. See Staples, Inc. and Staples the Office Superstores, LLC v. HANNA EL HIN / DTAPLES.COM, FA1404001557007 (Forum Jun. 6, 2014).
The Panel finds that Respondent has acted in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).
Complainant asserts that, due to its extensive list of trademark registrations, Respondent must have had constructive knowledge of Complainant's rights in the YETI mark when Respondent registered the disputed domain name. The Panel may disregard Complainant's arguments concerning constructive knowledge as panels have held that constructive knowledge is not enough evidence of bad faith. See Custom Modular Direct LLC v. Custom Modular Homes Inc., FA 1140580 (Forum Apr. 8, 2008).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <yeticoat.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Mrs Prathiba M Singh Panelist
Dated: 30 September 2016
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page