Tommy John, Inc. v. Quan Zhong Jun
Claim Number: FA2004001893483
Complainant is Tommy John, Inc (“Complainant”), represented by Stacy J. Grossman of Law Office of Stacy J. Grossman, New York, USA. Respondent is Quan Zhong Jun (“Respondent”), Cheng Du Shi, China.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <tommyyjohn.com> and <tommyjohnn.com> (collectively “Domain Names”), registered with Zhengzhou Century Connect Electronic Technology Development Co., Ltd.
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.
Nicholas J.T. Smith as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on April 24, 2020; the Forum received payment on April 24, 2020.
On May 6, 2020, Zhengzhou Century Connect Electronic Technology Development Co., Ltd confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <tommyyjohn.com> and <tommyjohnn.com> domain names are registered with Zhengzhou Century Connect Electronic Technology Development Co., Ltd and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Zhengzhou Century Connect Electronic Technology Development Co., Ltd has verified that Respondent is bound by the Zhengzhou Century Connect Electronic Technology Development Co., Ltd 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 May 12, 2020, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Chinese language Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of June 1, 2020 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@tommyyjohn.com, postmaster@tommyjohnn.com. Also on May 12, 2020, 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 June 5, 2020, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Nicholas J.T. Smith 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 Names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
Preliminary Issue: Language of Proceeding
The language of the Registration Agreement in this case is Chinese. The Complaint has been provided in English and Chinese.
Pursuant to Rule 11(a), the Panel determines that the language requirement has been satisfied through the Chinese language Complaint and Commencement Notification, and, absent a Response, determines that the remainder of the proceedings may be conducted in English as to continue this proceeding in English would not materially result in prejudice to Respondent. See TRIA Beauty, Inc. v. Xu Bao Rong c/o Xu Bao, FA 1336978 (Forum Aug. 30, 2010).
A. Complainant
Complainant, Tommy John, Inc., is engaged in the manufacture and sale of clothing, including underwear and other undergarments. Complainant has rights in the TOMMY JOHN mark through its trademark registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 4,338,089, registered May 21, 2013). Respondent’s <tommyyjohn.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s TOMMY JOHN mark as Respondent incorporates the mark in its entirety with the inclusion of a typographical error: an extra letter “y” after TOMMY. Respondent’s <tommyjohnn.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s TOMMY JOHN mark as Respondent incorporates the mark in its entirety with the inclusion of a typographical error: an extra “n” following JOHN.
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <tommyyjohn.com> and <tommyjohnn.com> domain names. Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant’s TOMMY JOHN mark and is not commonly known by the Domain Names. Additionally, Respondent fails to use the Domain Names for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, Respondent uses the Domain Names to resolve to websites which are being used to obtain click-through revenue by linking to third-party websites, some of which compete with Complainant’s business.
Respondent registered and uses the <tommyyjohn.com> and <tommyjohnn.com> domain names in bad faith. Respondent has engaged in a pattern of bad faith registration. Respondent attempts to attract internet traffic to its websites by creating a likelihood of confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its websites. Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the TOMMY JOHN mark when it registered the Domain Names. Additionally, Respondent has engaged in typosquatting.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant holds trademark rights for the TOMMY JOHN mark. Each of the Domain Names is confusingly similar to Complainant’s TOMMY JOHN mark. Complainant has established that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names and that Respondent registered and has used the Domain Names 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 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”).
Complainant has rights in the TOMMY JOHN mark based upon registration of the mark with the USPTO (e.g. Reg. No. 4,338,089, registered May 21, 2013). Registration of a mark with the USPTO sufficiently confers a complainant’s rights in a mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Target Brands, Inc. v. jennifer beyer, FA 1738027 (Forum July 31, 2017) ("Complainant has rights in its TARGET service mark for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) by virtue of its registration of the mark with a national trademark authority, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”).).
The Panel finds that each of the Domain Names is confusingly similar to the TOMMY JOHN mark as they each incorporate the entire mark (absent the space between “TOMMY” and “JOHN”) and add a single letter (“y” or “n”) and the “.com” gTLD. Typographical errors and appended gTLDs are not sufficient to distinguish a domain name from an incorporated mark in a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis. See Bank of America Corporation v. Above.com Domain Privacy, FA 1629452 (Forum Aug. 18, 2015) (finding that the <blankofamerica.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the BANK OF AMERICA mark because it contains the entire mark and merely adds the gTLD ‘.com’ and the letter ‘l’ to create a common misspelling of the word ‘bank.’).
The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant alleges that Respondent holds no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names. In order for Complainant to succeed under this element, it must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the Domain Names under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006) and AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Forum Sept. 25, 2006) (“Complainant must first 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, then the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain names.”). The Panel holds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case.
Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names as Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Names, nor has Complainant authorized Respondent to use the TOMMY JOHN mark. Respondent has no relationship, affiliation, connection, endorsement or association with Complainant. WHOIS information can help support a finding that a respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, especially where a privacy service has been engaged. See State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Dale Anderson, FA1504001613011 (Forum May 21, 2015) (concluding that because the WHOIS record lists “Dale Anderson” as the registrant of the disputed domain name, the respondent was not commonly known by the <statefarmforum.com> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)); see also Kohler Co. v. Privacy Service, FA1505001621573 (Forum July 2, 2015) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) where “Privacy Service” was listed as the registrant of the disputed domain name). The WHOIS lists “Quan Zhong Jun” as the registrant of record. Coupled with Complainant’s unrebutted assertions as to absence of any affiliation or authorization between the parties, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Names in accordance with Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
The Domain Names resolve to websites featuring pay-per-click links to third party websites, some of which purport to offer competing goods (namely underwear) to Complainant. Such use is not indicative of rights or legitimate interests per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Insomniac Holdings, LLC v. Mark Daniels, FA 1735969 (Forum July 15, 2017) (”Respondent’s use of <edcorlando.xyz> also does not qualify as a bona fide offering… the <edcorlando.xyz> domain name resolves to a site containing pay-per-click hyperlinks and advertisements… Since these kinds of advertisements generate revenue for the holder of a domain name, they cannot be noncommercial; further, they do not qualify as a bona fide offering.”); see also Vance Int’l, Inc. v. Abend, FA 970871 (Forum June 8, 2007) (concluding that the operation of a pay-per-click website at a confusingly similar domain name does not represent a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, regardless of whether or not the links resolve to competing or unrelated websites or if the respondent is itself commercially profiting from the click-through fees).
The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
The Panel finds on the balance of probabilities that, at the time of registration of the Domain Names, April 13, 2020, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s TOMMY JOHN mark. Each of the Domain Names resolves to a website that contains pay-per-click links that are in respect of various types of underwear, part of the Complainant’s business. Furthermore it is improbable that a party would register two domain names that are obvious misspellings of Complainant’s TOMMY JOHN mark in the absence of any awareness of this mark. In the absence of rights or legitimate interests of its own this demonstrates registration in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
The Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the Domain Names in bad faith to create confusion with Complainant’s TOMMY JOHN Mark for commercial gain by using the confusingly similar Domain Names to resolve to websites containing advertisements and links to third party websites for commercial gain. Use of a confusingly similar domain name to redirect Internet users to a website containing advertisements and links to third party websites for commercial gain is indicative of bad faith registration and use per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Danbyg Ejendomme A/S v. lb Hansen / guerciotti, FA1504001613867 (Forum June 2, 2015) (finding that the respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the disputed domain name resolved to a website that offered both competing hyperlinks and hyperlinks unrelated to the complainant’s business); see also Tumblr, Inc. v. Ailing Liu, FA1402001543807 (Forum Mar. 24, 2014) (“Bad faith use and registration exists under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where a respondent uses a confusingly similar domain name to resolve to a website featuring links and advertisements unrelated to complainant’s business and respondent is likely collecting fees.”).
The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <tommyyjohn.com> and <tommyjohnn.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Nicholas J.T. Smith, Panelist
Dated: June 7, 2020
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page