Home Depot Product Authority, LLC v. Kazeem Aderibigbe
Claim Number: FA1904001838153
Complainant is Home Depot Product Authority, LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Richard J. Groos of King & Spalding LLP, Texas, USA. Respondent is Kazeem Aderibigbe ("Respondent"), Nigeria.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <homedepotcreditcardoffers.online>, registered with NameCheap, Inc.
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.
David E. Sorkin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on April 9, 2019; the Forum received payment on April 9, 2019.
On April 10, 2019, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by email to the Forum that the <homedepotcreditcardoffers.online> domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameCheap, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameCheap, Inc. 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 April 10, 2019, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 30, 2019 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via email to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@homedepotcreditcardoffers.online. Also on April 10, 2019, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the email 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 May 2, 2019, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed David E. Sorkin 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
Complainant is the world's largest home improvement specialty retailer and the fourth largest retailer in the United States, with more than 2,200 retail stores and annual worldwide sales of more than $100.9 billion. Complainant and its predecessors in interest have used HOME DEPOT, THE HOME DEPOT, and related marks continuously since at least 1979. Complainant owns numerous U.S. registrations for the marks and also claims common law rights. Complainant asserts that the marks are well known and famous.
Respondent registered the disputed domain name <homedepotcreditcardoffers.online> via a privacy registration service in September 2018. Complainant states that Respondent has no relationship, affiliation, connection, endorsement, or association with Complainant; that Respondent has never received any authorization, permission, or license to use Complainant's marks; and that Respondent is not known by the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name previously was used for a web page promoting an "Awesome Gift of the Day"; it no longer resolves to a website.
Complainant contends on the above grounds that the disputed domain name <homedepotcreditcardoffers.online> is confusingly similar to its HOME DEPOT mark; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used 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:
(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 set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, § 4.3 (3d ed. 2017), available at http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (dismissing complaint where complainant failed to "produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations").
The disputed domain name <homedepotcreditcardoffers.online> incorporates Complainant's registered HOME DEPOT trademark, adding the generic phrase "credit card offers," omitting the spaces, and appending the ".online" top-level domain. These alterations do not substantially diminish the similarity between the domain name and Complainant's mark. See, e.g., Home Depot Product Authority, LLC v. Nitish Chauhan, FA 1789599 (Forum July 9, 2018) (finding <homedepotcouponcode.com> confusingly similar to HOME DEPOT); Homer TLC, Inc. v. Domains Ventures, FA 649856 (Forum Apr. 6, 2006) (finding <homedepotgiftcard.com> confusingly similar to HOME DEPOT). Accordingly, the Panel considers the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to Complainant's registered mark.
Under the Policy, the Complainant must first make a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and then the burden shifts to the Respondent to come forward with concrete evidence of such rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Productions, Inc. v. Entertainment Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006).
The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's registered mark without authorization, and its only apparent (and now discontinued) use has been for what appears to be a misleading commercial website intended to attract visitors by creating a false impression of association with Complainant.
Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name, and Respondent has failed to come forward with any evidence of such rights or interests. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has sustained its burden of proving that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
Finally, Complainant must show that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Under paragraph 4(b)(iii) of the Policy, bad faith may be shown by evidence that Respondent registered the disputed domain name "primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor." Under paragraph 4(b)(iv), bad faith may be shown by evidence that "by using the domain name, [Respondent] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [Respondent's] web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [Respondent's] web site or location or of a product or service on [Respondent's] web site or location."
Respondent registered a domain name obviously intended to create a false impression of association with Complainant, and has used the domain name for a website apparently designed to exploit that confusion, presumably for commercial gain. Such conduct is indicative of bad faith registration and use under the Policy. See, e.g., Home Depot Product Authority, LLC v. Nitish Chauhan, supra (finding bad faith registration and use under similar circumstances). The Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
Having considered the three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <homedepotcreditcardoffers.online> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
David E. Sorkin, Panelist
Dated: May 3, 2019
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page