Home Depot Product Authority, LLC v. Kermit Kuehn
Claim Number: FA1610001696920
Complainant is Home Depot Product Authority, LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Richard J. Groos of King & Spalding LLP, Texas, United States. Respondent is Kermit Kuehn (“Respondent”), Arkansas, United States.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <hamptonbayflooring.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 known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Bruce E. Meyerson as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on October 6, 2016; the Forum received payment on October 6, 2016.
On October 7, 2016, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <hamptonbayflooring.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 October 7, 2016, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of October 27, 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@hamptonbayflooring.com. Also on October 7, 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 November 4, 2016, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Bruce E. Meyerson 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. 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
1. Complainant has used the HAMPTON BAY mark in connection with lighting fixtures, ceiling fans, and other goods since at least as early as 1986, and in connection with flooring since at least as early as February 2012.
2. Complainant has registered the HAMPTON BAY mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 2,309,163, registered Jan. 18, 2000), which demonstrates Complainant’s rights in its mark. The <hamptonbayflooring.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark as it wholly incorporates the mark and merely adds the generic term “flooring” and the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.”
3. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. Respondent has never been commonly known by the domain name, and Respondent has never requested or received any authorization, permission, or license from Complainant to use the HAMPTON BAY mark in any way.
4. Further, Respondent is not using the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, Respondent uses the domain name to host hyperlinks to products that directly compete with Complainant.
5. Respondent registered and is using the domain name in bad faith. First, Respondent uses the domain name to host competing hyperlinks. Second, because of Complainant’s multiple trademark registrations for the HAMPTON BAY mark, it is clear that Respondent registered the domain name with at least constructive knowledge of Complainant’s mark and rights therein.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Respondent consents to transfer the domain name to the Complainant.
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.
In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations and inferences set forth 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) (holding that the respondent’s failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of the 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.”).
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page