DECISION

 

GLOCK, Inc. v. Domain Administrator / See PrivacyGuardian.org

Claim Number: FA2012001926822

 

PARTIES

Complainant is GLOCK, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by John F. Renzulli of Renzulli Law Firm, LLP, Georgia, USA.  Respondent is Domain Administrator / See PrivacyGuardian.org (“Respondent”), Arizona, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <glock-us.com> (‘the Domain Name’), registered with NameSilo, LLC.

 

PANEL

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.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on December 30, 2020; the Forum received payment on December 30, 2020.

 

On January 1, 2021, NameSilo, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <glock-us.com> domain name is registered with NameSilo, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name.  NameSilo, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameSilo, 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 January 5, 2021, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of January 25, 2021 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@glock-us.com.  Also on January 5, 2021, 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 January 26, 2021 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.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the Domain Name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A.   Complainant

The Complainant owns the trade mark GLOCK registered, inter alia, in the USA for pistols with first use recorded as 1986.

 

The Domain Name registered in 2020 is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s  trade mark containing it in its entirety and the addition of a hyphen, the generic abbreviation ‘us’ meaning United States and the gTLD “.com” do not distinguish the Domain Name from the Complainant’s mark.

 

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 web site connected with the Domain Name is using the Complainant’s trade mark, logo and address to purport to offer the Complainant’s products. The site takes personal information from customers and payment. Following payment no products are supplied in this apparent fraudulent activity. This is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use.  It is registration and use in bad faith impersonating the Complainant, phishing for information and diverting Internet users for commercial gain.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

The Complainant owns the trade mark GLOCK registered, inter alia, in the USA for pistols with first use recorded as 1986.

 

The Domain Name registered in 2020 has been used for a site using the Complainant’s logo and address which appears to be an official site of the Complainant and purports to offer the Complainant’s products.

 

DISCUSSION

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 and/or Confusingly Similar

The Domain Name consists of the Complainant’s GLOCK mark (registered, inter alia, in the USA for pistols with first use recorded as 1986) the generic term ‘us’ indicating United States, a hyphen and the gTLD.com.

 

Previous panels have found confusing similarity when a respondent merely adds generic terms to a Complainant's mark. See PG&E Corp. v Anderson, D2000-1264 (WIPO Nov. 22, 2000)(finding that respondent does not by adding common descriptive or generic terms create new or different marks nor does it alter the underlying mark held by the Complainant). Nor does the addition of a hyphen. See Health Devices Corp. v. Aspen STC, FA 158254 (Forum July 1, 2003) (The addition of punctuation marks such as hyphens is irrelevant in the determination of confusing similarity pursuant to Policy 4(a)(i).). Accordingly the Panel agrees that the addition of the generic term ‘us’ and a hyphen to the Complainant's mark does not prevent confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the Complainant's trade mark pursuant to the Policy.

 

The gTLD “.com” does not serve to distinguish the Domain Name from the Complainant’s mark, which is the distinctive component of the Domain Name. 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 gTLD 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 Sept. 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 Panelist notes the assertion that no products are provided and customer information is gathered in an apparent fraud although there is no actual evidence provided with the Complaint that customers who have ordered products have paid and not received goods ordered or have been the target of further use of their personal information by the Respondent.

 

However, the web site attached to the Domain Name uses the Complainant's GLOCK mark and its logo and address to offer purport to offer the Complainant’s goods.  It does not make it clear that there is no commercial connection with the Complainant and the web site appears official. The Panel finds this use is deceptive and confusing. As such it cannot amount to the bona fide offering of goods and services. See Am. Intl Group Inc. v. Benjamin, FA 944242 (Forum May 11, 2007) (finding that the Respondent's use of a confusingly similar domain name to compete with the Complainant's business did not constitute a bona fide use of goods and services.).

 

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

In the opinion of the Panelist, the use made of the Domain Name in relation to the Respondent’s site is confusing and disruptive in that visitors to the site might reasonably believe it is connected to or approved by the Complainant as it purports to offer the Complainant’s products under the Complainant’s logo and using the Complainant’s address giving the impression that the site attached to the Domain Name is official and showing actual knowledge of the Complainant, its rights, business and services. 

 

Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain Internet users to its website by creating likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trade mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the web site likely to disrupt the business of the Complainant. See Asbury Auto Group Inc. v. Tex. Int'l Prop Assocs, FA 958542 (Forum May 29, 2007) (finding that the respondent's use of the disputed domain name to compete with the complainant's business would likely lead to confusion amongst Internet users as to the sponsorship or affiliation of a competing business and was therefore evidence of bad faith and use).

 

As such, the Panelist believes 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)(iii) and 4(b)(iv). There is no need to consider further allegations of bad faith.

 

DECISION

 

Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <glock-us.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

Dawn Osborne, Panelist

Dated:  January 27, 2021

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page