DECISION

 

Orange Glo International, Inc. v. Internet Hosting

Claim Number:  FA0406000283511

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Orange Glo International, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Oscar L. Alcantara, of Goldberg, Kohn, Bell, Black, Rosenbloom & Moritz, Ltd., 55 East Monroe Street, Suite 3700, Chicago, IL 60603.  Respondent is Internet Hosting  (“Respondent”), 17008-90^th Ave. Suite #164, Edmonton, AB, CA T5T 1L6.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <wwworangeglo.com>, registered with Onlinenic, Inc.

 

PANEL

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.

 

Hon. Ralph Yachnin as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the "Forum") electronically on June 4, 2004; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on June 7, 2004.

 

On June 7, 2004, Onlinenic, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name <wwworangeglo.com> is registered with Onlinenic, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Onlinenic, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Onlinenic, Inc. registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy").

 

On June 15, 2004, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of July 6, 2004 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, was transmitted to Respondent via e-mail, post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts, and to postmaster@wwworangeglo.com by e-mail.

 

Having received no Response from Respondent, using the same contact details and methods as were used for the Commencement Notification, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

 

On July 14, 2004, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Hon. Ralph Yachnin 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."  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.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A.  Complainant makes the following assertions:

 

1.      Respondent’s <wwworangeglo.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ORANGE GLO mark.

 

2.      Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <wwworangeglo.com> domain name.

 

3.      Respondent registered and used the <wwworangeglo.com> domain name in bad faith.

 

B.  Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant, Orange Glo is a growing company that manufactures, distributes and sells household cleaning products, including a cleaning and reconditioning preparation product for wood and other hard surfaces sold under the trademark ORANGE GLO.

 

Complainant holds a trademark registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office for the ORANGE GLO mark (Reg. No. 2,108,399, issued October 28, 1997). Complainant and it’s predecessor, Appel Mountain, Inc., have used the ORANGE GLO mark in commerce since October 1986. Complainant has invested considerable time and money into developing, promoting, and advertising its ORANGE GLO brand cleaner, and as a result the ORANGE GLO mark has become well-known as a high quality, effective product.

 

Complainant promotes and advertises its ORANGE GLO brand cleaner via its website located at the <greatcleaners.com> domain name, nationally broadcast commercials and infomercials, direct consumer broadcast networks, and through several other mediums. Complainant has sold several million units of its ORANGE GLO brand cleaning compound.

 

 Respondent has not used the <wwworangeglo.com> domain name for any purpose.

 

DISCUSSION

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."

 

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(e), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules.

 

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.

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

 

Complainant has established that it has rights in the ORANGE GLO mark through registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office and through the use of its mark in commerce for the last eighteen years. See Men’s Wearhouse, Inc. v. Wick, FA 117861 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 16, 2002) (“Under U.S. trademark law, registered marks hold a presumption that they are inherently distinctive and have acquired secondary meaning.”); see also Janus Int’l Holding Co. v. Rademacher, D2002-0201 (WIPO Mar. 5, 2002) (finding that Panel decisions have held that registration of a mark is prima facie evidence of validity, which creates a rebuttable presumption that the mark is inherently distinctive.  Respondent has the burden of refuting this assumption).

 

Respondent’s <wwworangeglo.com> domain name is confusingly similar and nearly identical to Complainant’s ORANGE GLO mark because the domain name incorporates Complainant’s mark in its entirety and only deviates by the addition of the prefix “www” and the top-level domain name “.com.” The mere addition of the prefix “www” and the “.com” top-level domain name do not negate the confusing similarity of Respondent’s domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Bank of Am. Corp. v. InterMos, FA 95092 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 1, 2000) (finding that Respondent’s domain name <wwwbankofamerica.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant’s registered trademark BANK OF AMERICA because it “takes advantage of a typing error (eliminating the period between the www and the domain name) that users commonly make when searching on the Internet”); see also Dow Jones & Co., Inc. v. Powerclick, Inc., D2000-1259 (WIPO Dec. 1, 2000) (holding that the deliberate introduction of errors or changes, such as the addition of a fourth “w” or the omission of periods or other such generic typos do not change respondent’s infringement on a core trademark held by Complainant); see also Rollerblade, Inc. v. McCrady, D2000-0429 (WIPO June 25, 2000) (finding that the top level of the domain name such as “.net” or “.com” does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar).

 

The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been established.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

 

Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. Due to Respondent’s failure to respond to the Complaint, it is assumed that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests once Complainant establishes a prima facie case pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See Clerical Med. Inv. Group Ltd. v. Clericalmedical.com, D2000-1228 (WIPO Nov. 28, 2000) (finding that under certain circumstances the mere assertion by Complainant that Respondent has no rights or legitimates interest is sufficient to shift the burden of proof to Respondent to demonstrate that such rights or legitimate interests do exist); see also Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000-0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (finding that once Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the domain, the burden shifts to Respondent to provide credible evidence that substantiates its claim of rights and legitimate interests in the domain name); see also Pavillion Agency, Inc. v. Greenhouse Agency Ltd., D2000-1221 (WIPO Dec. 4, 2000) (finding that Respondents’ failure to respond can be construed as an admission that they have no legitimate interest in the domain names).

 

Furthermore, the Panel may accept all reasonable allegations and inferences in the Complaint as true because Respondent has not submitted a Response. See 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.”); see also Do the Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000-0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (“Failure of a respondent to come forward to [contest complainant’s allegations] is tantamount to admitting the truth of complainant’s assertion in this regard.”). Complainant asserts that Respondent is not using the domain name for any purpose. The Panel accepts this assertion as true because the Respondent has not provided a response.

Although Respondent’s <wwworangeglo.com> domain name does not currently resolve to a developed website, the domain name itself is evidence of typosquatting which does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor does it represent a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Diners Club Int’l Ltd. v. Domain Admin******It's all in the name******, FA 156839 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 23, 2003) (holding that Respondent’s <wwwdinersclub.com> domain name, a typosquatted version of Complainant’s DINERS CLUB mark, was evidence in and of itself that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name vis á vis Complainant); see also Nat’l Ass’n of  Prof’l Baseball Leagues v. Zuccarini, D2002-1011 (WIPO Jan. 21, 2003) (“Typosquatting as a means of redirecting consumers against their will to another site, does not qualify as a bona fide offering of goods or services, whatever may be the goods or services offered at that site”).

 

Moreover, Respondent has offered no evidence and there is no proof in the record suggesting that Respondent is commonly known by the <wwworangeglo.com> domain name. Thus, Respondent has not established rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Gallup Inc. v. Amish Country Store, FA 96209 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 23, 2001) (finding that Respondent does not have rights in a domain name when Respondent is not known by the mark); see also Compagnie de Saint Gobain v. Com-Union Corp., D2000-0020 (WIPO Mar. 14, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where Respondent was not commonly known by the mark and never applied for a license or permission from Complainant to use the trademarked name).

 

The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been established.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

 

Although Respondent’s <wwworangeglo.com> domain name does not resolve to a developed website, the Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been satisfied because the domain name could not possibly be used in a manner that would not infringe upon Complainant’s mark. See Phat Fashions v. Kruger, FA 96193 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 29, 2000) (finding bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) even though Respondent has not used the domain name because “It makes no sense whatever to wait until it actually ‘uses’ the name, when inevitably, when there is such use, it will create the confusion described in the Policy”); see also Alitalia –Linee Aeree Italiane S.P.A v. Colour Digital, D2000-1260 (WIPO Nov. 23, 2000) (finding bad faith where Respondent made no use of the domain name in question and there are no other indications that Respondent could have registered and used the domain name in question for any non-infringing purpose).

 

Furthermore, Respondent has engaged in Typosquatting and as such, it would be difficult for Respondent to show that it did not have knowledge of Complainant’s ownership of the ORANGE GLO mark. Typosquatting by the use of a common misspelling made by Internet users to leave out the period between the “www” and the domain name evidences bad faith registration and use of a domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Nat’l Ass’n of Prof’l Baseball Leagues v. Zuccarini, D2002-1011 (WIPO Jan. 21, 2003) (“Typosquatting is the intentional misspelling of words with intent to intercept and siphon off traffic from its intended destination, by preying on Internauts who make common typing errors.  Typosquatting is inherently parasitic and of itself evidence of bad faith”); see also Canadian Tire Corp., Ltd. v. domain adm’r no.valid.email@worldnic.net 1111111111, D2003-0232 (WIPO May 22, 2003) (holding that “the absence of a dot between the “www” and “canadiantire.com” [in the <wwwcanadiantire.com> domain name is] likely to confuse Internet users, encourage them to access Respondent’s site” and evidenced bad faith registration and use of the domain name); see also Black & Decker Corp. v. Khan, FA 137223 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 3, 2003) (finding the <wwwdewalt.com> domain name was registered to “ensnare those individuals who forget to type the period after the “www” portion of [a] web-address,” evidence that the domain name was registered and used in bad faith); see also Medline, Inc. v. Domain Active Pty. Ltd., FA 139718 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 6, 2003) (“in typosquatting cases, such as this one, it would be difficult for Respondent to prove to the Panel that it did not have actual knowledge of Complainant’s distinctive MEDLINE mark when it registered the infringing <wwwmedline.com> domain name”).

 

The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been established.

 

DECISION

Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <wwworangeglo.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

 

Hon. Ralph Yachnin, Panelist

Justice, Supreme Court, NY (Ret.)

 

Dated:  July 28, 2004

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page