Walker Edison Furniture Company LLC v. Steve Thomson / Creed LLC
Claim Number: FA1905001843518
Complainant is Walker Edison Furniture Company LLC (“Complainant”), represented by J. Dustin Howell of Workman Nydegger, Utah, USA. Respondent is Steve Thomson / Creed LLC (“Respondent”), USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <us-walkeredison.com>, registered with NameCheap, 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.
Debrett G. Lyons as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on May 16, 2019; the Forum received payment on May 16, 2019.
On May 16, 2019, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <us-walkeredison.com> domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameCheap, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameCheap, Inc. 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 22, 2019, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of June 11, 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@us-walkeredison.com. Also on May 22, 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 June 12, 2019, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Debrett G. Lyons 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 asserts trademark rights in WALKER EDISON. Complainant holds a national registration for that trademark. Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark.
Complainant alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name because it has no trademark rights; is not known by the same name; and there has been no bona fide use of the domain name.
Complainant alleges that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith having targeted Complainant’s business.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
The factual findings pertinent to the decision in this case are that:
1. Complainant sells furniture and home decor by reference to the trademark WALKER EDISON;
2. Complainant owns, inter alia, United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) Reg. No. 4,346,668 registered June 4, 2013 for the trademark WALKER EDISON; and
3. the disputed domain name was registered on May 9, 2019 and has been used to generate emails which pose as having originated from Complainant. Further, the disputed domain name resolves to a parked page that carries various links unconnected with Complainant’s business under the trademark.
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.
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires a two-fold enquiry—a threshold investigation into whether a complainant has rights in a trademark, followed by an assessment of whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that trademark.
It is well established by decisions under this Policy that a trademark registered with a national authority is evidence of trademark rights (see, for example, Mothers Against Drunk Driving v. phix, FA 174052 (Forum Sept. 25, 2003)). Complainant therefore has rights since it provides proof of its registration with the USPTO, a national trademark authority.
For the purposes of comparison of the disputed domain name with the trademark the gTLD, “.com”, can be disregarded, as can the two-letter country code “US” for the United States of America, neither of which has value in distinguishing the domain name from the trademark. Further, the hyphenation only increases the likelihood that internet users would think that the disputed domain name directs to Complainant’s official website. The Panel finds the domain name confusingly similar to the trademark (see, for example, Am. Int’l Group, Inc. v. Domain Admin. Ltd., FA 1106369 (Forum Dec. 31, 2007) finding that “a generic top-level domain, such as ‘.com,’ ‘.net,’ ‘.biz,’ or ‘.org,’ is required in domain names”; see also Avaya Inc. v. Evelyn Dayda / Avaya Unlimited Sources LLC, FA 1611255 (Forum May 4, 2015) finding that as “the ‘usa’ portion of the disputed domain name is a generic geographic term, the internet user will assume that the domain name deals with the activities of Complainant in the USA and that it will lead to a website dealing with that subject. The domain name is therefore confusingly similar to the AVAYA mark and the Panel so finds.”).
Panel therefore finds that Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy states that any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be proved based on its evaluation of all evidence presented, shall demonstrate rights or legitimate interests to a domain name for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy:
(i) before any notice to you of the dispute, your use 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) you (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the domain name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
(iii) you are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trade mark or service mark at issue.
Complainant need only make out a prima facie case that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, after which the onus shifts to Respondent to rebut that case by demonstrating those rights or interests (see, for example, Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000‑0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000)).
The publicly available WhoIs information does not support any finding that the domain name registrant might have a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. The Panel finds no other evidence that Respondent might be commonly known by the disputed domain name.
Further, Complainant states that there is no association between the parties and there is nothing to contradict that claim. There is no evidence that Respondent has any trademark rights.
The disputed domain name resolves to a parked page that carries links apparently sponsored by the registrar. Such use is not usually indicative of rights or legitimate interests under this aspect of the Policy (see, for example, Vance Int’l, Inc. v. Abend, FA 970871 (Forum June 8, 2007) stating, “Although the websites accessed via the Disputed Domains may be operated by domain parking service providers, that activity is legally and practically attributable back to respondent.”).
Additionally, the Complainant provides evidence that Respondent has used the domain name as part of an email address to perpetrate a fraud. In particular, Complainant provides screenshots of an email which attempts to impersonate an employee of Complainant in order to solicit money. Manifestly, such use is not indicative of rights or a legitimate interest under this aspect of the Policy (see, for example, Kmart of Mich., Inc. v. Cone, FA 655014 (Forum Apr. 25, 2006) where the panel found the respondent’s attempt to pass itself of as the complainant was not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii); Chevron Intellectual Property LLC v. Thomas Webber / Chev Ronoil Recreational Sport Limited, FA 1661076 (Forum Mar. 15, 2016) finding that the respondent had failed to provide a bona fide offering of goods or services or any legitimate noncommercial or fair use, stating, “Respondent is using an email address to pass themselves off as an affiliate of Complainant. Complainant presents evidence showing that the email address that Respondent has created is used to solicit information and money on false pretenses. The disputed domain name is being used to cause the recipients of these emails to mistakenly believe Respondent has a connection with Complainant and is one of the Complainant’s affiliates.”); Church Mutual Insurance Company v. Paul Looney, FA 1668317 (Forum May 17, 2016) where the panel reasoned that “Respondent is making neither a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the <churchrnutual.com> domain name. Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name and an associated email account to impersonate Complainant and acquire personal or financial information from Complainant or Complainant’s customers.”).
A prima facie case has been made and so the onus shifts to Respondent. In the absence of a Response, Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or interests and so finds that Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy.
Complainant must prove on the balance of probabilities both that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith and used in bad faith.
Further guidance on that requirement is found in paragraph 4(b) of the Policy, which sets out four circumstances, any one of which is taken to be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith if established.
The four specified circumstances are:
‘(i) circumstances indicating that the respondent has registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the respondent’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
(ii) the respondent has registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
(iii) the 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 respondent’s 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 the respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on the site or location.’
The Panel finds that the use of the domain name falls under paragraph 4(b)(iv). The Panel has already found the domain name to be confusingly similar to the trademark. The fraudulent emails are likely to cause confusion. Their purpose is commercial gain. Panel finds registration and use in bad faith.
Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied the third and final element of the Policy.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <us-walkeredison.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Debrett G. Lyons, Panelist
Dated: June 25, 2019
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page