Sunbelt Rentals, Inc. v. Gabriella Garlo
Claim Number: FA2101001927104
Complainant is Sunbelt Rentals, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by William B. Cannon of Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP, North Carolina, USA. Respondent is Gabriella Garlo ("Respondent"), Brazil.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <sunbeltrentals.careers>, 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.
David E. Sorkin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on January 4, 2021; the Forum received payment on January 4, 2021.
On January 5, 2021, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by email to the Forum that the <sunbeltrentals.careers> 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 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 email to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@sunbeltrentals.careers. Also on January 5, 2021, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the email 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 29, 2021, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed David E. Sorkin 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 sells and leases equipment and machinery to customers in the construction, industrial, municipal, and do-it-yourself markets, with more than 900 locations in the United States and Canada, more than 10,000 employees, and more than 350,000 customers. Complainant has used SUNBELT RENTALS in connection with this business for more than thirty years, and owns various U.S. trademark registrations for the mark in both standard character and design form.
Respondent registered the disputed domain name <sunbeltrentals.careers> through a privacy registration service in October 2020. The domain name is being used for a website consisting of pay-per-click links, most of which relate to competitors of Complainant. Complainant states that Respondent is not connected to, sponsored by, or affiliated with Complainant; has not been licensed or otherwise authorized to use Complainant's mark; and is not commonly known by the disputed domain name.
Complainant contends on the above grounds that the disputed domain name <sunbeltrentals.careers> is identical or confusingly similar to its SUNBELT RENTALS mark; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical to a mark in which Complainant has rights; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
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 Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, § 4.3 (3d ed. 2017), available at http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (dismissing complaint where complainant failed to "produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations").
The disputed domain name <sunbeltrentals.careers> corresponds to Complainant's registered SUNBELT RENTALS trademark, with the space omitted and the ".careers" top-level domain appended thereto. The omission of spaces and addition of a top-level domain are normally irrelevant for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. See, e.g., Sodexo v. WhoisGuard Protected, WhoisGuard, Inc. / Gabriella Garlo, D2020-2706 (WIPO Jan. 4, 2021) (finding <sodexo.careers> identical or confusingly similar to SODEXO); Sunbelt Rentals, Inc. v. Bert Heath / Rental Supply Inc., FA 1678955 (Forum July 11, 2016) (finding <sunbeltrental.rentals> and <sunbelt-rental.com> confusingly similar to SUNBELT RENTALS); Sunbelt Rentals, Inc. v. VistaPrint Technologies Ltd, FA 1656560 (Forum Feb. 24, 2016) (finding <sunbeltrentals.biz> identical or confusingly similar to SUNBELT RENTALS); Zions Bancorporation v. Mohammed Akik Miah, D2014-0775 (WIPO July 9, 2014) (finding <zionsbank.careers> confusingly similar to ZIONS BANK). The Panel considers the disputed domain name to be identical to Complainant's registered mark for purposes of the Policy.
Under the Policy, the Complainant must first make a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and then the burden shifts to the Respondent to come forward with concrete evidence of such rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Productions, Inc. v. Entertainment Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006).
The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's registered mark without authorization, and its sole apparent use has been to display pay-per-click links, most of which relate to competitors of Complainant. Such use does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests under the Policy. See, e.g., IHOP Restaurants LLC v. WhoisGuard, Inc. / Gabriella Garlo, D2020-3001 (WIPO Dec. 21, 2020) (finding lack of rights or interests in similar circumstances); Sunbelt Rentals, Inc. v. Bert Heath / Rental Supply Inc., supra (same); Zions Bancorporation v. Mohammed Akik Miah, supra (same).
Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name, and Respondent has failed to come forward with any evidence of such rights or interests. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has sustained its burden of proving that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
Finally, Complainant must show that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Under paragraph 4(b)(iii) of the Policy, bad faith may be shown by evidence that Respondent registered the disputed domain name "primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor." Under paragraph 4(b)(iv), bad faith may be shown by evidence that "by using the domain name, [Respondent] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [Respondent's] web site 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 [Respondent's] web site or location or of a product or service on [Respondent's] web site or location."
Respondent used a privacy registration service to register a domain name corresponding to Complainant's mark and is using it to display pay-per-click links, most of which relate to competitors of Complainant. Such conduct is indicative of bad faith registration and use under the Policy. See, e.g., IHOP Restaurants LLC v. WhoisGuard, Inc. / Gabriella Garlo, supra (finding bad faith in similar circumstances); Sunbelt Rentals, Inc. v. Bert Heath / Rental Supply Inc., supra (same); Zions Bancorporation v. Mohammed Akik Miah, supra (same).
The Panel is also mindful of previous decisions under the Policy in which Respondent has been found to have registered and used domain names in bad faith. See, e.g., Sodexo v. WhoisGuard Protected, WhoisGuard, Inc. / Gabriella Garlo, supra (use of domain name to disseminate malware); IHOP Restaurants LLC v. WhoisGuard, Inc. / Gabriella Garlo, supra; Rheem Manufacturing Co. v. WhoisGuard, Inc. / Gabriella Garlo, D2020-2115 (WIPO Oct. 8, 2020) (use of domain name to display pay-per-click links to related and competing products and services).
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
Having considered the three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <sunbeltrentals.careers> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
David E. Sorkin, Panelist
Dated: February 1, 2021
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page