Acushnet Company v. Client Care Web Commerce Communications Limited / Martin Adam / Mike Gruenewald / Robert Parrish / Bing Yue
Claim Number: FA2208002008820
Complainant is Acushnet Company (“Complainant”), represented by Jonathan M. Gelchinsky of Pierce Atwood LLP, Maine, USA. Respondent is Client Care Web Commerce Communications Limited / Martin Adam / Mike Gruenewald / Robert Parrish / Bing Yue (“Respondent”), Malaysia.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <footjoygolfshoesale.com>, <footjoyindiaonline.com>, <footjoygolfshoesindia.com>, <footjoyitalia.com>, <footjoydeutschland.com>, <footjoysingaporesales.com>, <footjoysouthafricasale.com>, <footjoy-ireland.com>, <footjoy-malaysia.com>, <footjoy-nederland.com>, <footjoycanadasales.com>, <footjoydanmark.com>, <footjoygolfskor.com>, <footjoygolfskoherre.com>, <footjoygolfshoenz.com>, <footjoygolfshoessouthafrica.com>, <footjoy-suomi.com>, <fjoutlets.com>, <footjoyfactoryoutlets.com>, <footjoyfactoryoutletuk.com>, <footjoyoutletespana.com>, <footjoyindia.com>, <footjoyportugal.com>, <fjgolfshoesnz.com>, <footjoy-shop.com>, <footjoygolfshoesau.com> (collectively “Domain Names”), registered with ALIBABA.COM SINGAPORE E-COMMERCE PRIVATE LIMITED, Key-Systems GmbH, Dynadot, LLC; and Name.com, 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.
Nicholas J.T. Smith as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on August 17, 2022; Forum received payment on August 17, 2022.
Between August 17, 2022 and August 26, 2022 each of ALIBABA.COM SINGAPORE E-COMMERCE PRIVATE LIMITED, Key-Systems GmbH, Dynadot, LLC, and Name.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <footjoygolfshoesale.com>, <footjoyindiaonline.com>, <footjoygolfshoesindia.com>, <footjoyitalia.com>, <footjoydeutschland.com>, <footjoysingaporesales.com>, <footjoysouthafricasale.com>, <footjoy-ireland.com>, <footjoy-malaysia.com>, <footjoy-nederland.com>, <footjoycanadasales.com>, <footjoydanmark.com>, <footjoygolfskor.com>, <footjoygolfskoherre.com>, <footjoygolfshoenz.com>, <footjoygolfshoessouthafrica.com>, <footjoy-suomi.com>, <fjoutlets.com>, <footjoyfactoryoutlets.com>, <footjoyfactoryoutletuk.com>, <footjoyoutletespana.com>, <footjoyindia.com>, <footjoyportugal.com>, <fjgolfshoesnz.com>, <footjoy-shop.com>, and <footjoygolfshoesau.com> domain names are registered with them and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Each of the Registrars has verified that Respondent is bound by their specific registration agreements 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 31, 2022, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 20, 2022 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@footjoygolfshoesale.com, postmaster@footjoyindiaonline.com, postmaster@footjoygolfshoesindia.com, postmaster@footjoyitalia.com, postmaster@footjoydeutschland.com, postmaster@footjoysingaporesales.com, postmaster@footjoysouthafricasale.com, postmaster@footjoy-ireland.com, postmaster@footjoy-malaysia.com, postmaster@footjoy-nederland.com, postmaster@footjoycanadasales.com, postmaster@footjoydanmark.com, postmaster@footjoygolfskor.com, postmaster@footjoygolfskoherre.com, postmaster@footjoygolfshoenz.com, postmaster@footjoygolfshoessouthafrica.com, postmaster@footjoy-suomi.com, postmaster@fjoutlets.com, postmaster@footjoyfactoryoutlets.com, postmaster@footjoyfactoryoutletuk.com, postmaster@footjoyoutletespana.com, postmaster@footjoyindia.com, postmaster@footjoyportugal.com, postmaster@fjgolfshoesnz.com, postmaster@footjoy-shop.com, postmaster@footjoygolfshoesau.com. Also on August 31, 2022, 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, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On September 29, 2022, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Nicholas J.T. Smith as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that 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, 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: MULTIPLE RESPONDENTS
In the instant proceedings, Complainant has alleged that the entities which control the domain names at issue are effectively controlled by the same person and/or entity, which is operating under two aliases. Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”) provides that a “complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder.”
Complainant contends that both of the registrants for the Domain Names are related because: 1) the Domain Names are all similar variants of Complainant’s FOOTJOY or FJ marks, containing those marks mark and some combination of a geographical term and in some cases a generic terms 2) the Domain Names were registered within an 8 month period between October 2021 and June 2022 3) each of the Domain Names other than <footjoygolfshoenz.com> resolve to very similar websites (“Respondent’s Websites”) which share content on a similar template including sharing photographs taken from the Complainant’s website. This evidence, in the Panel’s opinion, strongly suggests that the Domain Names are owned/controlled by a single Respondent; were the named Respondents unrelated, it would be unlikely that multiple unconnected entities would register very similar domain names in the same period and point them to websites created with identical templates operating an identical business model.
In light of these contentions, which none of the identified Respondents deny, the Panel concludes that, on the balance of probabilities, the Domain Names are commonly owned/controlled by a single Respondent who is using multiple aliases. Hereafter the single Respondent will be referred to as “Respondent” for this Decision.
A. Complainant
Complainant, Acushnet Company, offers golf products, footwear, and apparel. Complainant has rights in the FOOTJOY mark and FJ mark through its registration of the marks with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 2,163,931 registered June 9, 1998 and Reg. No. 1,748,627 registered January 16, 1993). Respondent’s <footjoygolfshoesale.com>, <footjoyindiaonline.com>, <footjoygolfshoesindia.com>, <footjoyitalia.com>, <footjoydeutschland.com>, <footjoysingaporesales.com>, <footjoysouthafricasale.com>, <footjoy-ireland.com>, <footjoy-malaysia.com>, <footjoy-nederland.com>, <footjoycanadasales.com>, <footjoydanmark.com>, <footjoygolfskor.com>, <footjoygolfskoherre.com>, <footjoygolfshoenz.com>, <footjoygolfshoessouthafrica.com>, <footjoy-suomi.com>, <fjoutlets.com>, <footjoyfactoryoutlets.com>, <footjoyfactoryoutletuk.com>, <footjoyoutletespana.com>, <footjoyindia.com>, <footjoyportugal.com>, <fjgolfshoesnz.com>, <footjoy-shop.com>, and <footjoygolfshoesau.com> domain names are virtually identical and confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark because each one incorporates either the FOOTJOY or FJ marks in its entirety and adds a geographic or otherwise generic terms, in some cases a hyphen, and the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).
Respondent has no legitimate interests in the Domain Names. Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Names and Complainant has not authorized or licensed Respondent any rights in the FOOTJOY or FJ marks. Additionally, Respondent does not use the Domain Names for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, the Domain Names resolve to pages that display Complainant’s logo and offer counterfeit FOOTJOY-branded products in an attempt to sell counterfeit items of Complainant’s product in competition with Complainant. With respect to the <footjoygolfshoenz.com> domain name, Respondent has not made any demonstrable preparations to use it due to Respondent’s inactive holding.
Respondent registered and uses the Domain Names in bad faith. because Respondent uses the Domain Names to pass off as Complainant in an attempt to disrupt Complainant’s business for Respondent’s own commercial gain. With respect to the <footjoygolfshoenz.com> domain name, Respondent has made no use of this domain name. Respondent acted with actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the FOOTJOY or FJ marks as shown by Respondent’s attempts to pass off as Complainant and offer competing goods.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant holds trademark rights for the FOOTJOY or FJ marks. Each of the Domain Names is confusingly similar to one of Complainant’s FOOTJOY or FJ marks. 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 FOOTJOY and FJ marks under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through its registration of the marks with the USPTO (Reg. No. 2,163,931 registered June 9, 1998 and Reg. No. 1,748,627 registered January 16, 1993). Registration of a mark with the USPTO is sufficient to establish rights in that mark. See DIRECTV, LLC v. The Pearline Group, FA 1818749 (Forum Dec. 30, 2018) (“Complainant’s ownership of a USPTO registration for DIRECTV demonstrate its rights in such mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”).
The Panel finds that each of the Domain Names is confusingly similar to one of Complainant’s FOOTJOY and FJ marks as they each incorporate one of the marks in its entirety while adding generic and/or geographic terms (“nz”, “golf” and “-suomi” for example) and the “.com” gTLD. Such changes are insufficient to distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis. See Microsoft Corporation v. Thong Tran Thanh, FA 1653187 (Forum Jan. 21, 2016) (determining that confusing similarity exists where [a disputed domain name] contains Complainant’s entire mark and differs only by the addition of a generic or descriptive phrase and top-level domain); see also General Motors LLC v. Domain Admin, Privacy Protection Service INC d/b/a PrivacyProtect.org, FA 1656166 (Forum Feb. 12, 2016) (finding respondent’s <gm-uzbekistan.com> domain name confusingly similar to complainant’s GM mark as the addition of the geographic term “-uzbekistan” is inconsequential to a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis); see also Trip Network Inc. v. Alviera, FA 914943 (Forum Mar. 27, 2007) (finding top-level domains are irrelevant for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis).
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 FOOTJOY and FJ marks. 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 information of record lists “Client Care Web Commerce Communications Limited / Martin Adam / Mike Gruenewald / Robert Parrish / Bing Yue” as the registrants 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).
Each of the Domain Names other than <footjoygolfshoenz.com> (which, absent other evidence can be presumed to be inactive pending use for a similar purpose) resolves or has resolved to essentially identical websites (“Respondent’s Websites”). These websites, through the reproduction of the FOOTJOY and FJ marks, Complainant’s logo, copyrighted material from Complainant’s websites and reference to Complainant’s products, each pass themselves off as an official website of the Complainant for the purpose of selling unauthorized versions of Complainant’s goods, in direct competition with Complainant’s merchandise. The use of a confusingly similar domain name to resolve to a webpage that directly offers unauthorized versions of a complainant’s goods or goods or services that directly compete with a complainant does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use; indeed it provides a false impression that the Respondent is affiliated with or authorized by Complainant. See BALENCIAGA SA v. ling lin, FA 1768542 (Forum Feb. 16, 2018) (“The disputed domain names incorporate Complainant's registered mark, and are being used for websites that prominently display Complainant's mark and logo, along with apparent images of Complainant's products, offering them for sale at discounted prices. The sites do not disclaim any connection with Complainant, and in fact seem to be designed to create an appearance of such a connection. Such use does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests.”).
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, between (October 2021 to June 2022), Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s FOOTJOY and FJ marks since each of the Respondent’s Websites pass themselves off as an official website of the Complainant and as such reproduce material from Complainant and make repeated references to Complainant and its products. Furthermore, there is no obvious explanation, nor has one been provided, for an entity to register 26 domain names that contain the FOOTJOY or FJ marks and use 25 of them to redirect visitors to similar websites selling goods in direct competition with the Complainant under the FOOTJOY and FJ marks other than to take advantage of Complainant’s reputation in the FOOTJOY or FJ marks. 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 FOOTJOY or FJ marks for commercial gain by using (or in the case of <footjoygolfshoenz.com> passively holding the domain name pending use) the confusingly similar Domain Names to resolve to websites mimicking Complainant’s websites and offering unauthorized versions of Complainant’s products in direct competition with the Complainant’s products. Using a confusingly similar domain name to trade upon the goodwill of a complainant can evince bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Xylem Inc. and Xylem IP Holdings LLC v. YinSi BaoHu YiKaiQi, FA1504001612750 (Forum May 13, 2015) (“The Panel agrees that Respondent’s use of the website to display products similar to Complainant’s, imputes intent to attract Internet users for commercial gain, and finds bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).”). See also See Bittrex, Inc. v. Wuxi Yilian LLC, FA 1760517 (Forum Dec. 27, 2017) (finding bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where “Respondent registered and uses the <lbittrex.com> domain name in bad faith by directing Internet users to a website that mimics Complainant’s own website in order to confuse users into believing that Respondent is Complainant or is otherwise affiliated or associated with Complainant.”).
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 <footjoygolfshoesale.com>, <footjoyindiaonline.com>,<footjoygolfshoesindia.com>, <footjoyitalia.com>, <footjoydeutschland.com>, <footjoysingaporesales.com>, <footjoysouthafricasale.com>, <footjoy-ireland.com>, <footjoy-malaysia.com>, <footjoy-nederland.com>, <footjoycanadasales.com>, <footjoydanmark.com>, <footjoygolfskor.com>, <footjoygolfskoherre.com>, <footjoygolfshoenz.com>, <footjoygolfshoessouthafrica.com>, <footjoy-suomi.com>, <fjoutlets.com>, <footjoyfactoryoutlets.com>, <footjoyfactoryoutletuk.com>, <footjoyoutletespana.com>, <footjoyindia.com>, <footjoyportugal.com>, <fjgolfshoesnz.com>, <footjoy-shop.com>, and <footjoygolfshoesau.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Nicholas J.T. Smith, Panelist
Dated: September 30, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page