Puppies.com, LLC v. Kravasio Escoba
Claim Number: FA1909001861753
Complainant is Puppies.com, LLC (“Complainant”), represented by J. Damon Ashcraft of SNELL & V/ILMER L.L.P., Arizona, USA. Respondent is Kravasio Escoba (“Respondent”), Arkansas, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <puppyfindsecure.com>, registered with NameCheap, Inc. The domain name was registered on August 14, 2019.
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.
Eugene I. Low as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on September 11, 2019; the Forum received payment on September 11, 2019.
On September 12, 2019, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <puppyfindsecure.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 September 16, 2019, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of October 7, 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@puppyfindsecure.com. Also on September 16, 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 October 8, 2019, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Eugene I. Low 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 is a provider of pet selection services and pet information worldwide. Complainant has rights in the PUPPYFIND.COM mark through its registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 3,096,985, registered Mar. 23, 2006). Respondent’s <puppyfindsecure.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark as Respondent merely adds the word “secure” into Complainant’s mark.
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <puppyfindsecure.com> domain name as Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name nor has Respondent been licensed, authorized, or otherwise permitted by Complainant to use Complainant’s mark. Furthermore, Respondent’s use is not a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, as Respondent is attempting to pass off as Complainant.
Respondent registered and used the <puppyfindsecure.com> domain name in bad faith, as Respondent is attempting to attract Internet users for commercial gain. Additionally, Respondent is using the disputed domain name to defraud Internet users. Finally, Respondent had at least constructive knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the PUPPYFIND.COM mark prior to registering the disputed domain name.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
C. Additional Submissions
On October 10, 2019, the Panel issued an Order for additional submissions and extending time for rendering a decision. Under the Order, the Panel requests Complainant to submit evidence of screenshots (if any) of the respective websites of Complainant and the Disputed Domain, after which Respondent shall have 3 calendar days to respond solely on Complainant's further evidence.
On October 11, 2019, Complainant responded that it does not have such screenshots to submit. Respondent has not submitted any response.
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”).
The Panel considers that Complainant has established this element.
Complainant claims rights in the PUPPYFIND.COM mark through its registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (e.g., Reg. No. 3,096,985, registered Mar. 23, 2006). Having a valid trademark registration is generally sufficient to demonstrate rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
The Panel also accepts Complainant's argument that Respondent’s <puppyfindsecure.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark as Respondent merely adds the word “secure” into Complainant’s mark. The mere addition of a descriptive or generic term is generally not sufficient in distinguishing a disputed domain name from a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
The Panel accepts that Complainant has satisfied this element.
Complainant has made out a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Based on Complainant's submissions, Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name nor has Respondent been licensed or authorized by the Complainant to use Complainant’s mark. The WHOIS record identifies the Respondent as “Kravasio Escoba/Kravasio Escoba” and no information in the record indicates that Respondent was authorized to use Complainant’s mark or was commonly known by the disputed domain name.
The Panel also accepts Complainant's argument that Respondent fails to use the <puppyfindsecure.com> domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. In addition, Respondent's website associated with the disputed domain name appears to have been taken down pursuant to a complaint filed by Complainant filed under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
In the absence of a response from Respondent to counter this prima facie case, the Panel accepts that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
The Panel considers that Complainant has satisfied this element.
Complainant submits that Respondent has registered and used the <puppyfindsecure.com> domain name in bad faith. Specifically, Complainant submits that Respondent is attempting to attract Internet users for commercial gain by acts of fraud. Complainant contends that the resolving screen for the disputed domain name copied Complainant’s website’s login screen, in an effort to deceive Internet users to divulge their login information. However, Complainant was not able to adduce evidence of the parties' respective website screenshots for the Panel's reference. Complainant's explanation (by way of a sworn declaration) was that Respondent's website was taken down pursuant to a complaint filed by Complainant under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Normally, parties may still be able to refer the Panel to some historical screenshots available at some website archiving tools. In the current circumstances, however, the Panel is prepared to accept the facts set out in Complainant's sworn declaration.
In the absence of any response from Respondent to explain its registration and use of the domain name, the Panel accepts Complainant's contention that Respondent has registered and used the domain name in bad faith.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <puppyfindsecure.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Eugene I. Low, Panelist
Dated: October 17, 2019
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page