Evergreen Management Services, LLC v. Ibraimo mali
Claim Number: FA2202001986039
Complainant is Evergreen Management Services, LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Edmond DeFrank, California, USA. Respondent is Ibraimo mali (“Respondent”), Cameroon.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <dimecartsindustries.com>, registered with NameSilo, LLC.
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 26, 2022; the Forum received payment on February 26, 2022.
On February 27, 2022, NameSilo, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <dimecartsindustries.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 March 1, 2022, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 21, 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@dimecartsindustries.com. Also on March 1, 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 24, 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 it produces and sells electronic cigarettes, smokeless cigarette vaporizer pipes, among many other nicotine and cannabis products. Complainant asserts rights in the marks DIME and DIME INDUSTRIES through its registration of the marks in California in 2020 and in the United States in, respectively 2020 and 2021, the filing date for the Federal registration of DIME INDUSTRIES being December 30, 2020.
Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to both its DIME and DIME INDUSTRIES mark, as it incorporates the mark in its entirety, merely adding the generic terms “carts” and “industries” to the mark DIME; and inserting the generic term “carts” within the mark DIME INDUSTRIES; while in any case adding the “.com” generic top-level domain.
According to Complainant, Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Complainant has not authorized or licensed Respondent to use its marks, nor is Respondent commonly known by the disputed domain name. Further, Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use as Respondent attempts to pass off as Complainant by mimicking Complainant’s website, which displays Complainant’s mark and distinctive logo, and offering counterfeit versions of Complainant’s goods.
Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent attempts to attract users for commercial gain by passing off as Complainant, mimicking the Complainant’s website. Further, Respondent is using the disputed domain name to sell counterfeit goods, which disrupts Complainant’s business and is further indication of bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant has rights in the marks DIME and DIME INDUSTRIES and uses them to market electronic cigarettes, smokeless cigarette vaporizer pipes, among many other nicotine and cannabis products.
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark.
Complainant’s rights in its marks date back to 2020.
The disputed domain name was registered in 2021.
The resolving website displays Complainant’s mark and distinctive logo and offers for sale counterfeit versions of Complainant’s products.
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 DIME and DIME INDUSTRIES marks, merely adding the generic terms “carts” and “industries” to the mark DIME; and inserting the generic term “carts” within the mark DIME INDUSTRIES; while in any case adding the “.com” generic top-level domain. The relevant date for the Federal mark DIME INDUSTRIES is the filing date, see Lenovo (Beijing) Limited Corporation China v. jeonggon seo, FA 1591638 (Forum Jan. 16, 2015) (finding Complainant has rights in the LENOVO mark dating back to the February 20, 2003 filing date with the USPTO as the trademark application was ultimately successful); see also Hershey Co. v. Reaves, FA 967818 (Forum June 8, 2007) (finding that the complainant’s rights in the KISSES trademark through registration of the mark with the USPTO “date back to the filing date of the trademark application and predate [the] respondent’s registration”). The mere addition of generic terms and a gTLD is not sufficient to differentiate a disputed domain name from a mark. See MTD Products Inc. v. J Randall Shank, FA 1783050 (Forum June 27, 2018) (“The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark as it wholly incorporates the CUB CADET mark before appending the generic terms ‘genuine’ and ‘parts’ as well as the ‘.com’ gTLD.”); see also Dell Inc. v. pushpender chauhan, FA 1784548 (Forum June 11, 2018) (“Respondent merely adds the term ‘supports’ and a ‘.org’ gTLD to the DELL mark. Thus, the Panel finds Respondent’s disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s DELL mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”). Thus the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s marks per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its marks. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name: past panels have used the available WHOIS information to determine whether a Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. See Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Suzen Khan / Nancy Jain / Andrew Stanzy, FA 1741129 (Forum Aug. 16, 2017) (finding that respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names when the identifying information provided by WHOIS was unrelated to the domain names or respondent’s use of the same); see also Radio Flyer Inc. v. er nong wu, FA 2011001919893 (Forum Dec. 16, 2020) (“Here, the WHOIS information lists “er nong wu” as the registrant and no information suggests Complainant has authorized Respondent to use the RADIO FLYER mark in any way. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).”); see also Bittrex, Inc. v. Operi Manaha, FA 1815225 (Forum Dec. 10, 2018) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <appbittrex.com> domain name where the WHOIS information listed Respondent as “Operi Manaha,” and nothing else in the record suggested Respondent was authorized to use the BITTREX mark.). In the present case, the WHOIS information shows that the registrant is “Ibraimo mali”. Therefore the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
Respondent uses the disputed domain name to attempt to pass off as Complainant (the resolving website displays Complainant’s mark and logo and mimics Complainant’s legitimate website) and to attempt to sell counterfeit versions of Complainant’s products. This is not a bona fide offering of goods and services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name under the Policy. See Dell Inc. v. Devesh Tyagi, FA 1785301 (Forum June 2, 2018) (“Respondent replicates Complainant’s website and displays Complainant’s products. The Panel finds that this use is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) & (iii).”); see Watts Water Technologies Inc. v. wo ci fa men zhi zao (kun shan) you xian gong si, FA 1740269 (Forum Aug. 11, 2017) (“Respondent has used the domain name to resolve to a website that mimics the color scheme associated with Complainant’s WATTS brand and displays counterfeit versions of Complainant’s products for purchase in an attempt to pass itself off as Complainant… [therefore], the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.”); see also eLuxury.com Inc. v. WangJunJie, FA 1075554 (Forum Nov. 30, 2007) (concluding that the sale of counterfeit products is evidence that the respondent does not make a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of a 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 or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (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 attempt to attract users for commercial gain by passing off as Complainant and offering for sale counterfeit versions of Complainant’s products. Past panels have found that this constitutes bad faith under the Policy. See Bittrex, Inc. v. Wuxi Yilian LLC, FA 1760517 (Forum Dec. 27, 2017) (finding bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where “Respondent registered and uses the <lbittrex.com> domain name in bad faith by directing Internet users to a website that mimics Complainant’s own website in order to confuse users into believing that Respondent is Complainant, or is otherwise affiliated or associated with Complainant.”); see also Russell & Bromley Limited v. Li Wei Wei, FA 1752021 (Forum Nov. 17, 2017) (finding the respondent registered and used the at-issue domain name in bad faith because it used the name to pass off as the complainant and offer for sale competitive, counterfeit goods); see also Ontel Products Corporation v. waweru njoroge, FA1762229 (Forum Dec. 22, 2017) (“Respondent’s primary offering seem to be counterfeits of Complainant’s toy car products. Respondent’s use of the <magictrackscars.com> domain name is thus disruptive to Complainant’s business per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)”); see also Xiaomi Inc. v. Tanapong Kotipan / Omega Gadget, FA1505001621199 (Forum July 10, 2015) (“Use of a domain name to offer counterfeit goods does consist of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).”). Thus the Panel finds bad faith registration and use per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).
Further, Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s mark: the resolving website displays Complainant’s mark and distinctive logo. 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 <dimecartsindustries.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Richard Hill, Panelist
Dated: March 24, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page