Shopify Inc. v. Olark / Olark Domains
Claim Number: FA2009001913150
Complainant is Shopify Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Brandon Ress of King & Spalding LLP, Texas, USA. Respondent is Olark / Olark Domains (“Respondent”), Michigan, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <shopifychat.com>, registered with eNom, LLC.
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.
Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on September 21, 2020; the Forum received payment on September 21, 2020.
On September 22, 2020, eNom, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <shopifychat.com> domain name is registered with eNom, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. eNom, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the eNom, LLC 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 23, 2020, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of October 13, 2020 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@shopifychat.com. Also on September 23, 2020, 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 16, 2020, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Paul M. DeCicco 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 contends as follows:
Complainant operates an ecommerce platform for the operation of online and mobile retail stores, and various products and services.
Complainant has rights in the SHOPIFY mark through its registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”).
Respondent’s <shopifychat.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark, as Respondent merely adds a generic word “chat” and the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) to Complainant’s mark.
Respondents has no rights or legitimate interests in the <shopifychat.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 merely passively holding the disputed domain name.
Respondent registered and uses the <shopifychat.com> domain name in bad faith. Specifically, Respondent is attempting to disrupt Complainant’s business by diverting Internet users seeking the Complainant’s services to an inactive webpage. Respondent had used the domain name to redirect traffic to a website offering a chat service. Finally, Respondent had knowledge of Complainant’s rights in its mark.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant has rights in the SHOPIFY mark.
Complainant’s rights in the SHOPIFY mark existed prior to Respondent’s registration of the at-issue domain name.
Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant’s trademark.
Respondent holds the at-issue domain name passively.
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 at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.
Complainant’s USPTO registration for SHOPIFY is sufficient evidence of its rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). 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).”).
Additionally, Respondent’s <shopifychat.com> domain name contains Complainant’s entire SHOPIFY trademark, followed by the descriptive term “chat,” with all followed by the generic top-level domain name “.com.” The differences between Complainant’s mark and Respondent’s at-issue domain name fail to distinguish the domain name from the SHOPIFY mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent’s <shopifychat.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s SHOPIFY trademark. See MTD Products Inc. v. J Randall Shank, FA 1783050 (Forum June 27, 2018) (“The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark as it wholly incorporates the CUB CADET mark before appending the generic terms ‘genuine’ and ‘parts’ as well as the ‘.com’ gTLD.”).
Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006). Since Respondent failed to respond, Complainant’s prima facie showing acts conclusively.
Respondent lacks both rights and legitimate interests in respect of the <shopifychat.com> domain name. Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant’s trademark in any capacity and, as discussed below, there are no Policy ¶ 4(c) circumstances from which the Panel might find that Respondent has rights or interests in respect of the at‑issue domain name.
The WHOIS information for the at-issue domain name identifies its registrant as “Olark / Olark Domains.” Additionally, the record before the Panel contains no evidence that tends to show that Respondent is commonly known by the <shopifychat.com> domain name. The Panel therefore concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Emerson Electric Co. v. golden humble / golden globals, FA 1787128 (Forum June 11, 2018) (“lack of evidence in the record to indicate a respondent is authorized to use [the] complainant’s mark may support a finding that [the] respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)”).
Respondent currently holds the at-issue domain name passively which indicates that Respondent is making neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a non-commercial or fair use of the domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Morgan Stanley v. Francis Mccarthy / Baltec Marine Llc, FA 1785347 (Forum June 8, 2018) (“both Domain Names resolve to a web site that shows the words, ‘Not Found, The requested URL / was not found on this server.’ Inactive holding of a domain name does not qualify as a bona fide offering of goods or services within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate non-commercial or fair use within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”).
Given the forgoing, Complainant satisfies its initial burden and conclusively demonstrates Respondent’s lack of rights and lack of interests in respect of the at-issue domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Respondent’s <shopifychat.com> domain name was registered and used in bad faith. As discussed below without limitation, circumstance are present which compel the Panel to conclude that Respondent acted in bad faith regarding the at-issue domain name pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
First, Respondent at one time used the at-issue domain name to provide a chat function similar to one that might be used by an online retail operator such as Complainant. Now, Respondent holds <shopifychat.com> passively. Such uses of the confusingly similar at-issue domain name are disruptive to Complainant’s business and show Respondent’s bad faith under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) & (iv). See Love City Brewing Company v. Anker Fog / Love City Brewing Company, FA 1753144 (Forum Nov. 27, 2017) (Finding that Respondent disrupts Complainant’s business by pointing internet users to an expired webpage. This may create the perception that Complainant is closed, never existed, or is not a legitimate business. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain names in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).); see also, Disney Enters., Inc. v. Noel, FA 198805 (Forum Nov. 11, 2003) (“Respondent registered a domain name confusingly similar to Complainant's mark to divert internet users to a competitor's website. It is a reasonable inference that Respondent's purpose of registration and use was to either disrupt or create confusion for Complainant's business in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) [and] (iv).”).
Moreover, Respondent registered <shopifychat.com> knowing that Complainant had trademark rights in SHOPIFY. Respondent’s prior knowledge is evident from the notoriety of Complainant’s trademarks and from Respondent’s inclusion of the suggestive term “chat” within the at-issue domain name. Therefore, it is clear that Respondent intentionally registered the at-issue domain name precisely to improperly exploit its trademark value, rather than for some benign reason. Respondent’s prior knowledge of Complainant's trademark shows that Respondent registered and used its <shopifychat.com> domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent had "actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name").
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <shopifychat.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist
Dated: October 23, 2020
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page