Budget Blinds, LLC v. Host Master / Transure Enterprise Ltd
Claim Number: FA1910001868790
Complainant is Budget Blinds, LLC (“Complainant”), represented by J. Damon Ashcraft of SNELL & V/ILMER L.L.P, Arizona, USA. Respondent is Host Master / Transure Enterprise Ltd (“Respondent”), Delaware, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <budgeblinds.com> (‘the Domain Name’), registered with Above.com Pty Ltd..
The undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Dawn Osborne as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on October 28, 2019; the Forum received payment on October 28, 2019.
On October 29, 2019, Above.com Pty Ltd. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <budgeblinds.com> domain name is registered with Above.com Pty Ltd. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Above.com Pty Ltd. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Above.com Pty Ltd. 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 November 1, 2019, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of November 21, 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@budgeblinds.com. Also on November 1, 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 November 25, 2019 pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Dawn Osborne 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
The Complainant is the owner of the trade mark BUDGET BLINDS registered in the United States for goods and services related to window coverings with first use recorded as 1992.
The Domain Name registered in 2016 is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark omitting only a letter ‘t’ and adding the gTLD .com which does not prevent this confusing similarity.
The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name is not commonly known by it and is not authorized by the Complainant.
The Domain Name has been used for pay per click links to the Complainant’s competitors which is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial fair use.
The Domain Name has also been offered for sale which is indicative of a lack of rights or legitimate interests.
Typosquatting is per se evidence of bad faith, as is use of a Domain Name for pay per click links to competitors and offering a domain name for sale generally for a sum in excess of costs of registration.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
The Complainant is the owner of the trade mark BUDGET BLINDS registered in the United States for goods and services related to window coverings with first use recorded as 1992.
The Domain Name registered in 2016 has been used for pay per click links to the Complainant’s competitors and has been offered generally for sale.
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”).
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Domain Name consists of a sign confusingly similar to the Complainant’s BUDGET BLINDS mark (registered in the USA for window coverings with first use recorded as 1992) merely omitting a letter ‘t’ and adding the gTLD.com.
The Panel agrees that misspellings such as omission of a letter does not distinguish the Domain Name from the Complainant's trade mark pursuant to the Policy. See Hallelujah Acres Inc. v. Manila Indus., Inc., FA 805029 (Forum Nov. 15, 2006).
The gTLD .com does not serve to distinguish the Domain Name from the Complainant’s BUDGET BLINDS mark. See Red Hat Inc. v. Haecke, FA 726010 (Forum July 24, 2006) (concluding that the redhat.org domain name is identical to the complainant's red hat mark because the mere addition of the TLD was insufficient to differentiate the disputed domain name from the mark).
Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar for the purposes of the Policy with a mark in which the Complainant has rights.
As such, the Panel holds that Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been satisfied.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant has not authorized the use of its mark. The Respondent has not answered this Complaint and there is no evidence or reason to suggest the Respondent is, in fact, commonly known by the Domain Name. See Alaska Air Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines v. Song Bin, FA1408001574905 (Forum September 17, 2014) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name as demonstrated by the WHOIS information and based on the fact that the complainant had not licensed or authorized the respondent to use its ALASKA AIRLINES mark).
The Respondent has used the site attached to the Domain Names for links offering competing products and services not connected with the Complainant and to offer to sell the Domain Name. It does not make it clear that there is no commercial connection with the Complainant. See CheapCaribbean.com, Inc. v. Moniker Privacy Services, FA1411001589962 (Forum Jan. 1, 2015) (“The Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the <cheepcaribbean.com> name to promote links in competition with Complainant’s travel agency services does not fall within Policy 4(c)(i)’s bona fide offering of goods or services, nor does it amount to a legitimate noncommercial or fair use described in Policy 4(c)(iii).”); See also Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation v. Diego Ossa, FA1501001602016 (Forum Feb. 26, 2015) (“The Resolving parked page advertises the sale of the domain name with the message ‘Would you like to buy this domain?’ The Panel accepts this offer as demonstrative of Respondent’s willingness to sell the disputed domain name, and finds that such behavior provides additional evidence that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.”)
As such, the Panelist finds that the Respondent does not have rights or a legitimate interest in the Domain Name and that the Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
The Respondent has not answered this Complaint or explained why it should be allowed to register a domain name containing a sign confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark.
The Domain Name seeks to take advantage of the situation where Internet users may make a typographical error. Typosquatting itself is evidence of relevant bad faith registration and use. See Diners Club int'l Ltd. v. Domain Admin ****** It's all in the name ******, FA 156839 (Forum June 23, 2003) (registering a domain name in the hope that Internet users will mistype the Complainant’s mark and be taken to the Respondent’s site is registration and use in bad faith). Typosquatting also indicates the Respondent had knowledge of the Complainant and its rights. See InfoSpace, Inc. v. Greiner, FA 227653 (Forum Mar. 8, 2004) (“Respondent’s domain name is a simple and popular variation of a trademark commonly used by typosquatters …Such a domain name evidences actual knowledge of the underlying mark prior to the registration of the domain name, and as Respondent failed to submit any evidence to counter this inference [sic], Respondent’s actions evidence bad faith registration of the disputed domain name.”).
Use for competing pay per click links also indicates bad faith being disruptive of the Complainant’s business and diverting customers for commercial gain and can indicate actual knowledge of the Complainant and its business. See American Council on Education and GED Testing Service LLC v. Anthony Williams, FA1760954 (Forum January 8, 2018) (“Respondent’s hosting of links to Complainant’s competitors demonstrates bad faith registration and use of the <geddiploma.org> domain name pursuant to Policy 4(b)(iii)”); see also Capital One Financial Corp. v. DN Manager / Whois-Privacy.Net Ltd, FA1504001615034 (Forum June 4, 2015) (holding that the respondent’s use of the <capitaloneonebank.com> domain name to display links to the complainant’s competitors, such as Bank of America, Visa, Chase and American Express constituted bad faith pursuant to Policy 4(b)(iv)). See also University of Rochester v. Park HyungJin, FA1410001587458 (Forum Dec. 9, 2014) (where the Panel inferred Respondent’s actual knowledge based on Respondent’s use of the domain name to promote links related to the same field as where Complainant’s mark is used.).
The Domain Name has also been offered for sale generally.
As such, the Panel holds that the Complainant has made out its case that the Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith and has satisfied the third limb of the Policy under ¶¶¶ 4(b)(i), (iii) and (iv).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <budgeblinds.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Dawn Osborne, Panelist
Dated: November 26, 2019
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page