T. Rowe Price Group, Inc. v. Domain Protection LLC
Claim Number: FA1910001867353
Complainant is T. Rowe Price Group, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by David M. Kramer of DLA Piper LLP (US), District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is Domain Protection LLC (“Respondent”), USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <www3troweprice.com>, registered with Sea Wasp, 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.
Alan L. Limbury, as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on October 17, 2019; the Forum received payment on October 17, 2019.
On October 18, 2019, Sea Wasp, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <www3troweprice.com> domain name is registered with Sea Wasp, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Sea Wasp, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Sea Wasp, 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 23, 2019, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of November 12, 2019 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@www3troweprice.com. Also on October 23, 2019, 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 13, 2019, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Alan L. Limbury 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
The domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s world-famous
T. ROWE PRICE trademark.
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. Respondent is not licensed or otherwise authorized to use Complainant’s mark and is not commonly known by the domain name. Respondent fails to use the domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, Respondent uses the domain name to divert users to third-party websites for commercial gain.
Respondent registered and is using the domain name in bad faith. Respondent attempts to disrupt Complainant’s business and attract, for commercial gain, users to the domain name by featuring competing pay-per-click links. Respondent registered the domain name under a privacy service. Due to the fame and well-known status and usage of the T. ROWE PRICE mark, Respondent registered the disputed domain name with opportunistic bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Founded in 1937, Complainant is a global leader in the fields of asset management, advisory services and retirement planning. It is the registrant of numerous T. ROWE PRICE trademarks around the world, including USPTO registration No. 1493517 for mutual fund services in International Class 36, registered on June 21, 1988 and renewed in 2018. The T. ROWE PRICE mark is famous.
The <www3troweprice.com> domain name was registered on May 11, 2005. It resolves to a website displaying links to asset management services offered by competitors of Complainant.
Complainant has established all three elements required to entitle it to the relief which it seeks.
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 Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at ¶ 4.3; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (“Because Complainant did not produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations [. . .] the Panel finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint”).
Disregarding the inconsequential “.com” gTLD suffix, which is generally regarded as irrelevant for the purpose of determining whether a domain name is identical or confusingly similar (see Magnum Piering, Inc. v. The Mudjackers and Garwood S. Wilson, Sr., WIPO Case No. D2000-1525; Rollerblade, Inc. v. Chris McCrady, WIPO Case No. D2000-0429), the domain name <www3troweprice.com> differs from Complainant’s T. ROWE PRICE mark, which is clearly recognizable within the domain name, merely by the addition of the prefix “www3” and the omission of the full stop, which do nothing to distinguish the domain name from the mark. See Home Depot Product Authority, LLC v. Angelo Kioussis, FA 1784554 (Forum June 4, 2018) (“The domain name contains the mark in its entirety, with only the addition of the generic letters ‘sb’ and the digits ‘2018,’ plus 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.”).
The Panel finds the domain name to be confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark.
(i) before any notice to Respondent of the dispute, the use by Respondent of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or
(ii) Respondent (as an individual, business or other organization) has been commonly known by the domain name, even if Respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
(iii) Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert customers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.
The Panel finds that the T. ROWE PRICE mark is distinctive and famous. Complainant’s assertions are sufficient to constitute a prima facie showing of absence of rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain dame on the part of Respondent. The evidentiary burden therefore shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. See Cassava Enterprises Limited, Cassava Enterprises (Gibraltar) Limited v. Victor Chandler International Limited, WIPO Case No. D2004-0753. Respondent has made no attempt to do so.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name.
(iii) Respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) by using the domain name, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website 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 website or location or of a product or service on its website or location.
As in T. Rowe Price Group, Inc. v. Domain Administrator, Fundacion Privacy Services Ltd (WIPO Case No. D2019-0839), the Panel finds that the domain name has no meaning other than as a reference to Complainant’s mark, and the redirection of the domain name to the website of a competitor of Complainant puts it beyond any doubt that Respondent was aware of Complainant’s rights in the mark when it registered the domain name.
The Panel accepts Complainant’s submission that, once Internet users enter the domain name into their browser, they are presented with links to pages containing additional links to third-party websites purporting to offer goods and services unrelated to Complainant, which can re-direct to the home page of Complainant’s competitors. Given the nature of the use of the domain name, Respondent is undoubtedly profiting each time a consumer erroneously visits the domain name.
The Panel therefore finds, pursuant to paragraphs 4(b)(iii) and (iv) of the Policy, that Respondent registered and is using the domain name in bad faith.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <www3troweprice.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Alan L. Limbury, Panelist
Dated: November 20, 2019
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page