Capitol Wright Distributing LLC v. Brandon Wright
Claim Number: FA2008001908323
Complainant is Capitol Wright Distributing LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Dwayne K. Goetzel, Texas, United States. Respondent is Brandon Wright (“Respondent”), Virginia, United States.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <capitalwright.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.
David A. Einhorn appointed as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on August 13, 2020; the Forum received payment on August 13, 2020.
On August 14, 2020, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <capitalwright.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 18, 2020, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 8, 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@capitalwright.com. Also on August 18, 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 September 11, 2020, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed David A. Einhorn 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 provides customer service to diverse manners customary to the relevant industry. Complainant has rights in the CAPITOL WRIGHT through its registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g. Reg. No. 4,920,523, registered March 22, 2016). Respondent’s <capitalwright.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s CAPITOL WRIGHT mark. Respondent incorporates the mark in its entirety and changes the “O” to an “A.”
Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the <capitalwright.com> domain name as Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name nor did Complainant authorize Respondent to use its mark in any way. Respondent fails to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent offers hyperlinks to competing third parties or those unrelated to Complainant’s business. Respondent engages in the practice of typosquatting by misdirecting consumers who misspell Complainant’s CAPITOL WRIGHT mark.
Respondent registered and used the <capitalwright.com> domain name in bad faith as Respondent attempts to sell the disputed domain name. Respondent also engages in the practice of typosquatting by misdirecting consumers who misspell Complainant’s CAPITOL WRIGHT mark.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. The Panel notes that the <capitalwright.com> domain name was registered on September 19, 2018.
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 CAPITOL WRIGHT DISTRIBUTING & DESIGN mark through its registration with the USPTO. Registration of a mark with the USPTO is sufficient to establish rights in a mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Liberty Global Logistics, LLC v. damilola emmanuel / tovary services limited, FA 1738536 (Forum Aug. 4, 2017) (“Registration of a mark with the USPTO sufficiently establishes the required rights in the mark for purposes of the Policy.”). Here, Complainant has provided the Panel with a copy of its USPTO registration for the CAPITOL WRIGHT DISTRIBUTING & DESIGN mark (e.g. Reg. No. 4,920,523, registered March 22, 2016). The Panel finds that Complainant has shown rights in the mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant argues that Respondent’s <capitalwright.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s CAPITOL WRIGHT DISTRIBUTING & DESIGN mark. Registration of a domain name that contains a mark in its entirety with one letter being replaced does not distinguish the domain name from the mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Omaha Steaks International, Inc. v. DN Manager / Whois-Privacy.Net Ltd, FA 1610122 (Forum July 9, 2015) (“The domain name differs from the mark only in that the domain name substitutes the letter ‘a’ in the word ‘steak’ with the letter ‘c’ and adds 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.”). Here, Respondent incorporates the mark in its entirety and changes the “O” to an “A.” The Complainant does not address this, but Respondent also removes the generic word “Distributing” from its domain name. The Panel finds that these changes in Respondent’s domain name are insufficient to avoid confusing similarity to Complainant’s mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Thus, Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant argues that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interest in the <capitalwright.com> domain name as Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name nor has Respondent been given license or consent to use the CAPITOL WRIGHT DISTRIBUTING mark or register domain names incorporating Complainant’s mark. Where a response is lacking, WHOIS information may be used to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. LY Ta, FA 1789106 (Forum June 21, 2018) (concluding a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name where the complainant asserted it did not authorize the respondent to use the mark, and the relevant WHOIS information indicated the respondent is not commonly known by the domain name). Additionally, lack of authorization to use a complainant’s mark may indicate that the respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. See Emerson Electric Co. v. golden humble / golden globals, FA 1787128 (Forum June 11, 2018) (“lack of evidence in the record to indicate a respondent is authorized to use [the] complainant’s mark may support a finding that [the] respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)”). The WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the registrant as “Brandon Wright,” and there is no other evidence to suggest that Respondent was authorized to use the CAPITOL WRIGHT DISTRIBUTING mark or was commonly known by the disputed domain name. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
Complainant argues that Respondent engages in the practice of typosquatting by misdirecting consumers who misspell the word CAPITOL in Complainant’s mark. Typosquatting is the practice of taking advantage of typographical errors to resolve to a different webpage. See Chegg Inc. v. yang qijin, FA1610050 (Forum Apr. 23, 2015) (“Users might mistakenly reach Respondent’s resolving website by misspelling Complainant’s mark. Taking advantage of Internet users’ typographical errors, known as typosquatting, demonstrates a respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interests under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).”). Here, Respondent creates a misspelling of the word CAPITOL in Complainant’s mark in the disputed domain name in order to misdirect consumers to its illegitimate webpage. Therefore, Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interest in the domain name per Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Thus, Complainant has also satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Complainant also argues that Respondent’s typosquatting constitutes bad faith. See Vanguard Trademark Holdings USA LLC v. Shuai Wei Xu / Xu Shuai Wei, FA 1784238 (Forum June 1, 2018) (finding the respondent engaged in typosquatting—and thus registered and used the at-issue domain names in bad faith—where the names consisted of the complainant’s mark with small typographical errors introduced therein). The Panel agrees and finds that Respondent’s typosquatting constitutes bad faith registration and use per 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 <capitalwright.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
David A. Einhorn, Panelist
Dated: September 25, 2020
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page