LCL Enterprises, Inc. v. Expo Superstore / Debra McCarty
Claim Number: FA2112001977269
Complainant is LCL Enterprises, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by John Halski of Perkins Coie LLP, Washington, USA. Respondent is Expo Superstore / Debra McCarty (“Respondent”), New Hampshire, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <lclbeautys.com>, (‘the Domain Name’) registered with NameSilo, LLC.
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.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on December 15, 2021; the Forum received payment on December 15, 2021.
On December 16, 2021, NameSilo, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <lclbeautys.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 December 17, 2021, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of January 6, 2022 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@lclbeautys.com. Also on December 17, 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 12, 2022, 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.
Complainant requests that the Domain Name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
The Complainant’s contentions can be summarized as follows:
The Complainant is the owner of the trade mark LCL BEAUTY registered, inter alia, in the USA for beauty products with first use recorded as 2010.
The Domain Name registered in 2021 is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark, wholly incorporating it and adding only the letter ‘s’ and the gTLD “.com” neither of which distinguish the Domain Name from the Complainant’s mark.
Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name and has no permission from the Complainant to use the Complainant’s mark. The Domain Name has been used for a competing web site falsely using the Complainant’s physical address and mimicking the Complainant’s official web site including material copied from the Complainant’s web site and the Complainant’s mark and logo in the masthead of the site. This cannot be a bona fide offering of goods and services or a noncommercial legitimate fair use. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name.
The Respondent registered and used the Domain Name in opportunistic bad faith with actual knowledge of the Complainant and its rights to confuse Internet users into believing the Domain Name and web site attached to it are associated with the Complainant for commercial gain.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
The Complainant is the owner of the trade mark LCL BEAUTY registered, inter alia, in the USA for beauty products with first use recorded as 2010.
The Domain Name registered in 2021 has been used for a competing web site mimicking the Complainant’s official site.
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 Domain Name is confusingly similar the Complainant's LCL BEAUTY mark (which is registered, inter alia, in the USA for beauty products with first use recorded as 2010), the single letter ‘s’ and the gTLD “.com”.
Panels have found that adding one letter to a registered mark in a domain name does not prevent confusing similarity between that domain name and that mark. See Twitch Interactive, Inc. v. Antonio Teggi, FA 1626528 (Forum Aug 3, 2015) (finding that twitcch.tv is confusingly similar to the TWITCH TV trade mark because the domain name consisted of a common misspelling of the mark by merely adding the letter ‘c’). Adding an extra ‘s’ does not prevent confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the Complainant’s mark.
The gTLD “.com” does not serve to distinguish the Domain Name from the Complainant’s mark. 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 to the Complainant’s registered mark.
As such the Panel holds that Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been satisfied.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent has not answered this Complaint and is not authorized by the Complainant. The Respondent does not appear to be 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 use of the Domain Name is commercial so cannot be legitimate noncommercial fair use.
The web site attached to the Domain Name is using the Complainant’s mark and logo as a masthead and mimicking the Complainant’s official website copying material from that site and falsely using the Complainant’s physical address. The Panel finds this use is deceptive. 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.); See also Bittrex, Inc. v. Caroline Alves Maia, FA 1796113 (Forum Aug. 6, 2018) (finding the respondent’s attempt to pass itself of as the complainant was not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate non-commercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) when the respondent used the disputed domain name to present users with a website that was “virtually identical, with the same color scheme, the same layout and the same substantive content.”).
Also the Domain Name appears to be a typosquatting registration. Typosquatting is an indication of a lack of rights or legitimate interests. See Chegg Inc. v. yang qijin, FA1503001610050 (Forum Apr. 23, 2015) (“Users might mistakenly reach Respondent’s resolving website by misspelling Complainant’s mark. Taking advantage of Internet users’ typographical errors, known as typosquatting, demonstrates a respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interests under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).”).
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 offers products under the Complainant’s mark and logo used as a masthead and mimics the Complainant’s official site and falsely uses the Complainant’s physical address.
Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trade mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the web site and/or services offered on it 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). The Prudential Insurance Company of America v. Henrique Bryan Souza / DATAMIX ENSINO DE INFORMATICA, FA 1718308 (Forum Apr. 3, 2017) (finding bad faith where the respondent used the disputed domain name to resolve to a website upon which the respondent imitated the complainant’s mark, logo, and color scheme to create a “strikingly similar” website).
The Domain Name also seeks to take advantage of the situation where Internet users may make a typographical error. Typosquatting itself is evidence of relevant bad faith registration and use and disruption of the Complainant’s business. See Diners Club int'l Ltd. v. Domain Admin ****** It's all in the name ******, FA 156839 (Forum June 23, 2003) (registering a domain name in the hope that Internet users will mistype the Complainant’s mark and be taken to the Respondent’s site is registration and use in bad faith). Typosquatting also indicates the Respondent had knowledge of the Complainant and its rights. See InfoSpace, Inc. v. Greiner, FA 227653 (Forum Mar. 8, 2004) (“Respondent’s domain name is a simple and popular variation of a trademark commonly used by typosquatters …Such a domain name evidences actual knowledge of the underlying mark prior to the registration of the domain name, and as Respondent failed to submit any evidence to counter this inferrence [sic], Respondent’s actions evidence bad faith registration of the disputed domain name.”).
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 paragraphs 4(b)(iii) and 4(b)(iv).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <lclbeautys.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Dawn Osborne, Panelist
Dated: January 12, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page