Mouser Electronics, Inc. v. Amir Cohen / Hush Privacy Protection Ltd.
Claim Number: FA2101001928029
Complainant is Mouser Electronics, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Jason R. Fulmer of Foley & Lardner LLP, Texas, USA. Respondent is Amir Cohen / Hush Privacy Protection Ltd. (“Respondent”), Seychelles.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <mauserelectronics.com>, registered with Key-Systems GmbH.
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.
Alan L. Limbury, as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on January 12, 2021. The Forum received payment on January 12, 2021.
On January 13, 2021, Key-Systems GmbH confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <mauserelectronics.com> domain name is registered with Key-Systems GmbH and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Key-Systems GmbH has verified that Respondent is bound by the Key-Systems GmbH 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 18, 2021, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 8, 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@mauserelectronics.com. Also on January 18, 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 February 12, 2021, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Alan L. Limbury 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
Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <mauserelectronics.com> domain name. Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant’s marks and is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Additionally, Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent uses the disputed domain to host third-party advertising links.
Respondent registered and uses the <mauserelectronics.com> domain name in bad faith. Respondent creates confusion and displays commercial hyperlinks for commercial gain. Additionally, Respondent’s domain name registration constitutes typosquatting in bad faith. Further, Respondent had actual or constructive knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the MOUSER and MOUSER ELECTRONICS marks when the disputed domain name was registered.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant has established all the elements entitling it to relief.
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”).
Complainant has shown that it has rights in the MOUSER mark based upon its registration with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 2,207,030, registered Dec. 01, 1998). Complainant has also shown that it has rights in the MOUSER ELECTRONICS mark based upon its registration with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 2,210,703, registered Dec. 15, 1998).
The Panel finds Respondent’s <mauserelectronics.com> domain name to be confusingly similar to Complainant’s MOUSER and MOUSER ELECTRONICS marks because the word “electronics” does nothing to distinguish the domain name from the MOUSER mark and because, in relation to both marks, the domain name incorporates a misspelling of the word “mouser” created by replacing the letter “O” in the mark with an “A”.
Complainant has established this element.
(i) before any notice to Respondent of the dispute, the use by Respondent of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or
(ii) Respondent (as an individual, business or other organization) has been commonly known by the domain name, even if Respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
(iii) Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert customers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.
Complainant’s marks were first used in commerce in 1973. Respondent’s <mauserelectronics.com> domain name was registered on November 28, 2004. It resolves to a website which displays Complainant’s MOUSER ELECTRONICS mark and provides pay-per-click links to third-party sites, including sites for electronics and related products and services of the kind which Complainant offers.
These circumstances, coupled with Complainant’s assertions, are sufficient to constitute a prima facie showing of absence of rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name on the part of Respondent. The evidentiary burden therefore shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. See Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014). Respondent has made no attempt to do so.
In the circumstances of this case, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name.
Complainant has established this element.
Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out four illustrative circumstances, which, though not exclusive, shall be evidence of the registration and use of the domain name in bad faith for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, including:
The <mauserelectronics.com> domain name was registered many years after Complainant has shown that its MOUSER and MOUSER ELECTRONICS marks had become well-known. The use of the letter “a” in the domain name clearly constitutes an intentional “typosquatted,” misspelling of the MOUSER mark, demonstrating that Respondent had Complainant’s marks in mind when registering the domain name and that Respondent did so in bad faith.
The use to which the domain name is being put shows that Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s marks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s website and of products or services accessed via pay-per-click links on its website.
For these reasons, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the <mauserelectronics.com> domain name in bad faith.
Complainant has established this element.
Complainant having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <mauserelectronics.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Alan L. Limbury, Panelist
Dated: February 15, 2021
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page