Man Socks Italia S.R.L. v. Joseph Prussia
Claim Number: FA2105001944082
Complainant is Man Socks Italia S.R.L. (“Complainant”), represented by William Bak of Howson & Howson LLP, Pennsylvania, USA. Respondent is Joseph Prussia (“Respondent”), Alabama, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <thinkpinkcollection.net>, registered with Wix.com Ltd.
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.
Richard Hill as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on May 6, 2021; the Forum received payment on May 6, 2021.
On May 9, 2021, Wix.com Ltd. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <thinkpinkcollection.net> domain name is registered with Wix.com Ltd. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Wix.com Ltd. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Wix.com 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 May 11, 2021, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of June 1, 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@thinkpinkcollection.net. Also on May 11, 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. Respondent did however send emails to the Forum, see below.
On June 3, 2021, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Richard Hill 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.
PRELIMINARY ISSUE: IDENTITY THEFT
Respondent contends that it has been the victim of identity theft, see below. As the Forum did not receive any further response from the named Respondent it proceeded with the Panel appointment. The Panel has taken the following rules and precedent into account in making a determination on not redacting Respondent’s identity.
According to Policy ¶ 4(j), “[a]ll decisions under this Policy will be published in full over the Internet, except when an Administrative Panel determines in an exceptional case to redact portions of its decision.” In Wells Fargo & Co. v. John Doe as Holder of Domain Name <wellzfargo.com>, FA 362108 (Forum Dec. 30, 2004) and Wells Fargo & Co. v. John Doe as Holder of Domain Name <wellsfargossl>, FA 453727 (Forum May 19, 2005), the panels omitted the respondents’ personal information from the decisions, pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(j), in an attempt to protect the respondents who claimed to be victims of identity theft from becoming aligned with acts the actual registrants appeared to have sought to impute to the respondents.).
However, according to Forum Supplemental Rule 15(b), “All requests pursuant to Policy paragraph 4(j) and Rule 16(b) to have a portion of the decision redacted, must be made in the Complaint, the Response, or an Additional Submission that is submitted before the Panel’s decision is published.” (emphasis added). Rule 1 defines “respondent” as “the holder of a domain-name registration against which a complaint is initiated;” and Forum Supplemental Rule 1(d) further defines “the holder of a domain-name registration” as “the single person or entity listed in the WHOIS registration information at the time of commencement.” The Panel notes precedent which holds the registrar-confirmed registrant of a disputed domain (per the WHOIS at commencement of the proceeding) the proper respondent, notwithstanding the possibility that said respondent’s identity was stolen. See, e.g., Banco Bradesco S/A v. Gisele Moura Leite, D2014-0414 (WIPO Apr. 30, 2014).
In the instant case, there has been no request in the Complaint to redact any portion of the decision, nor has there been a Response or an Additional Submission. Consequently, the Panel finds that it is not warranted to redact Respondent’s name and location from the Panel’s decision,
A. Complainant
Complainant states that it operates a clothing, apparel, and sports gear company. Complainant has rights in the THINK PINK mark through its registration in the United States in 1984.
Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its THINK PINK mark, as it incorporates the mark in its entirety and merely adds the generic term “collection” along with the “.net” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).
According to Complainant, Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name as it is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and is neither an authorized user nor licensee of the THINK PINK mark. Additionally, Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services, nor for any legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent uses the disputed domain to offer for sale products that compete directly with Complainant’s business.
Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent offers for sale products which compete directly with Complainant’s business, disrupting Complainant’s business and likely leading to commercial gain for Respondent. Complainant also sent Respondent several cease-and-desist letters regarding the disputed domain name. Additionally, Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the THINK PINK mark.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. It its emails to the Forum, Respondent states, in pertinent part: “You have the wrong email address”. And “You have the wrong person”.
Complainant owns the mark THINK PINK and uses it to market clothing and sports gear.
Complainant’s rights in its mark date back to at least 1984.
The disputed domain name was registered in 2021.
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark.
The resolving website offers for sale products that compete with those of Complainant. The WHOIS information is incorrect.
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 disputed domain name incorporates Complainant’s mark in its entirety, merely adding the generic term “collection” and the “.net” gTLD. Such changes may not sufficiently distinguish a domain name from a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Morgan Stanley v. Eugene Sykorsky / private person, FA 1651901 (Forum Jan. 19, 2016) (concluding that the addition of a generic term and top level domain to a trademark is inconsequential under a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis.). Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name: when a response is lacking, relevant WHOIS information may demonstrate that a respondent is not commonly known by a disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Dale Anderson, FA1504001613011 (Forum May 21, 2015) (concluding that because the WHOIS record lists “Dale Anderson” as the registrant of the disputed domain name, the respondent was not commonly known by the <statefarmforum.com> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)). Here, the WHOIS information of record identifies “Joseph Prussia” as the registrant of the disputed domain name. The Panel therefore finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
Respondent uses the disputed domain to display products for sale that compete directly with Complainant’s business. Such use of a disputed domain name may not qualify as a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor can it be a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii). See General Motors LLC v. MIKE LEE, FA 1659965 (Forum Mar. 10, 2016) (finding that “use of a domain to sell products and/or services that compete directly with a complainant’s business does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”). Thus, the Panel finds that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). And the Panel finds that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Respondent (who did not reply to Complainant’s contentions) has not presented any plausible explanation for its use of Complainant’s mark. In accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel shall draw such inferences from Respondent’s failure to reply as it considers appropriate. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent did not have a legitimate use in mind when registering the disputed domain name.
Indeed, as already noted, Respondent uses the disputed domain name to sell products that compete directly with Complainant’s business. Using an infringing domain name to display and sell products which compete directly with Complainant’s business qualifies as bad faith disruption and attraction to commercial gain pursuant to Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv). See ZIH Corp. v. ou yang lin q, FA1761403 (Forum Dec. 29, 2017) (Finding bad faith where Respondent used the infringing domain name to disrupt Complainant’s business by diverting Internet users from Complainant’s website to Respondent’s website where it offered competing printer products); see also Xylem Inc. and Xylem IP Holdings LLC v. YinSi BaoHu YiKaiQi, FA1504001612750 (Forum May 13, 2015) (“The Panel agrees that Respondent’s use of the website to display products similar to Complainant’s, imputes intent to attract Internet users for commercial gain, and finds bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).”). Thus, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain in bad faith under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and/or (iv).
Further, Respondent registered the disputed domain name using false WHOIS contact information: Respondent states that the name and email in the WHOIS are incorrect. This can evince bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See CNU ONLINE Holdings, LLC v. Domain Admin / Whois Privacy Corp., FA1504001614972 (Forum May 29, 2015) (“As the Panel sees that Respondent has provided false or misleading WHOIS information, the Panel finds bad faith in Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”); see also ABB Asea Brown Boveri Ltd v. Global Mgr, FA 1702001716963 (Forum Mar. 30, 2017) (“Complainant contends that Respondent provided false contact information while registering the disputed domain. Registering a confusingly similar domain name using false contact information can evince bad faith registration.”); see also j2 Global Canada, Inc. and Landslide Technologies, Inc. v. Vijay S Kumar/Strategic Outsourcing Services Pvt Ltd, FA 1411001647718 (Forum Jan. 4, 2016) (“False or misleading contact information indicates bad faith registration and use.”); see also Chevron Intellectual Property LLC v. Phillip Thomas/Chevron Pacific, FA 1504001615524 (Forum May 29, 2015) (“Complainant’s use of false registration data and its unexplained redirection of the disputed domain name to Complainant’s own website are further indications of such bad faith.”); see also McDonald’s Corp. v. Holy See, FA 0304000155458 (Forum June 27, 2003) (“The Panel finds that Respondent provided false contact information in the registration certificates and that such actions, even though not specifically enumerated in the Policy, may form the basis for a finding of bad faith registration and use.”); see also Mars, Incorporated v. RaveClub Berlin, FA 0106000097361 (Forum July 16, 2001) (providing false registration and contact information for infringing domain names evidenced Respondent’s bad faith). Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <thinkpinkcollection.net> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Richard Hill, Panelist
Dated: June 3, 2021
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page