Wahl Clipper Corporation v. Tamas Csirmaz
Claim Number: FA2202001985313
Complainant is Wahl Clipper Corporation (“Complainant”), represented by Joshua S. Frick of Barnes & Thornburg LLP, Illinois, USA. Respondent is Tamas Csirmaz (“Respondent”), California, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <wahlsales.shop>, 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.
Richard Hill as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on February 22, 2022; the Forum received payment on February 22, 2022.
On February 22, 2022, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <wahlsales.shop> 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 February 23, 2022, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 15, 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@wahlsales.shop. Also on February 23, 2022, 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 March 17, 2022, 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.
A. Complainant
Complainant states that, for over 100 years, since at least as early as 1919, Complainant has been continuously and extensively engaged in the business of marketing and selling hair care products, including electric hair clippers, electric hair trimmers, electric hair shavers, hair care products, (shampoos, styling products, etc.), and other related goods and accessories for consumer home use, professional use, and animal use including retail, groomers, and veterinarians. Complainant also provides related charitable services to promote education and professionalism in barbering and hair styling. Complainant asserts rights in the WAHL mark based upon its registration in the United States in 1950.
Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its WAHL mark because it contains the mark in its entirety, merely adding the generic term “sales” and the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.shop”.
According to Complainant, Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant’s WAHL mark 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 name to pass off as Complainant; the resolving website displays Complainant’s mark and logo and offers for sale unauthorized versions of Complainant’s products.
Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the WAHL mark. Respondent additionally uses the disputed domain name to pass off as Complainant and to sell unauthorized versions of Complainant’s products.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant has registered trademarks for the mark WAHL and uses it to market hair care products. The mark was registered in 1950.
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark.
The disputed domain name was registered in 2021.
The resolving website offers unauthorized versions of Complainant’s products; it displays Complainant’s mark and logo, and photos of Complainant’s products taken from Complainant’s legitimate website.
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 contains Complainant’s WAHL mark in its entirety, merely adding the generic/descriptive term “sales” and the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.shop”. The addition of generic or descriptive terms and gTLDs to a mark does not distinguish the disputed domain name from the mark incorporated therein per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Vanguard Group Inc. v. Proven Fin. Solutions, FA 572937 (Forum Nov. 18, 2005) (holding that the addition of both the word “advisors” and the gTLD “.com” did not sufficiently alter the disputed domain name to negate a finding of confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)); see also Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) (“Where a relevant trademark is recognizable within a disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element.”). Thus the Panel finds that the <wahlsales.shop> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s WAHL mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Respondent is not licensed or otherwise authorized to use Complainant’s WAHL mark. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name: where a response is lacking, WHOIS information may be used to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by the 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 for the disputed domain name lists the registrant as “Tamas Csirmaz.” Therefore the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
Respondent uses the disputed domain name to pass off as Complainant and offer to sell unauthorized versions of Complainant’s products. The resolving website displays Complainant’s mark and photos of Complainant’s products taken from Complainant’s legitimate website. An attempt to pass off as a complainant and/or to offer unauthorized versions of a complainant’s products is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii). See also Ripple Labs Inc. v. Jessie McKoy / Ripple Reserve Fund, FA 1790949 (Forum July 9, 2018) (finding the respondent did not use the domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services per Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) where the website resolving from the disputed domain name featured the complainant’s mark and various photographs related to the complainant’s business); see also HUGO BOSS Trademark Management GmbH & Co., KG; and HUGO BOSS AG v. lupe hag / Lupe Haag, Case No. FA1801001768931 (Forum Mar. 1, 2018) (finding that the respondent lacked rights or legitimate interests in or to the disputed domain name where the respondent had no permission or license to register the disputed domain name, was not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and was not making a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the domain name because the respondent was not an authorized reseller of the complainant’s goods and was offering for sale counterfeit goods); see also Fossil Group, Inc. v. wuwuima wu FA 1544486 (Forum Mar. 21, 2014) (finding the use of the Fossil mark and images of what appear to be genuine Fossil products including watches, wallets and purses established that Respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name). Thus the Panel finds that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under 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 pass off as Complainant in order to compete with Complainant’s business. Use of a domain name to create a false impression of affiliation with a complainant in order to compete with and disrupt the complainant’s business is behavior indicative of bad faith registration and use per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Crocs, Inc. v. jing dian, Case No. FA1410001587214 (Forum Dec. 12, 2014) (finding bad faith where the respondent used the disputed domain name to display the complainant’s marks to sell unauthorized goods); see also Swarovski Aktiengesellschaft v. ailong c ailong xiong, Case No. FA1407001571172 (Forum Sept. 5, 2014) (finding bad faith where respondent used the disputed domain name in connection with a website purportedly offering unauthorized goods of Complainant and stating that the respondent’s bad faith was “apparent in that [r]espondent is profiting from the likelihood Internet users will mistakenly believe the goods sold through the domain name’s website are legitimate…”); see also Am. Int’l Group, Inc. v. Busby, FA 156251 (Forum May 30, 2003) (finding that the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith where the respondent hosted a website that “duplicated Complainant’s mark and logo, giving every appearance of being associated or affiliated with Complainant’s business . . . to perpetrate a fraud upon individual shareholders who respected the goodwill surrounding the AIG mark”); see also Hunter Fan Co. v. MSS, FA 98067 (Forum Aug. 23, 2001) (finding bad faith where the respondent used the disputed domain name to sell the complainant’s products without permission and mislead Internet users by implying that the respondent was affiliated with the complainant). The Panel therefore finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
Further, Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s mark: the resolving website displays Complainant’s mark and logo, and offers for sale unauthorized versions of Complainant’s products. While constructive notice is insufficient to demonstrate bad faith, actual knowledge of a complainant’s rights in a mark prior to registration may be evidence of bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Custom Modular Direct LLC v. Custom Modular Homes Inc., FA 1140580 (Forum Apr. 8, 2008) (“There is no place for constructive notice under the Policy.”); see also Orbitz Worldwide, LLC v. Domain Librarian, FA 1535826 (Forum Feb. 6, 2014) (“The Panel notes that although the UDRP does not recognize ‘constructive notice’ as sufficient grounds for finding Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) bad faith, the Panel here finds actual knowledge through the name used for the domain and the use made of it.”); see also Univision Comm'cns Inc. v. Norte, FA 1000079 (Forum Aug. 16, 2007) (rejecting the respondent's contention that it did not register the disputed domain name in bad faith since the panel found that the respondent had knowledge of the complainant's rights in the UNIVISION mark when registering the disputed domain name). The Panel finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the mark prior to Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name and that this constitutes 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 <wahlsales.shop> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Richard Hill, Panelist
Dated: March 17, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page