Zappos IP LLC v. sdfa dfdafa / adfdaffd
Claim Number: FA2204001992763
Complainant is Zappos IP LLC (“Complainant”), represented by James F. Struthers of Richard Law Group, Inc., Texas, USA. Respondent is sdfa dfdafa / adfdaffd (“Respondent”), Taiwan.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <zapposint.com>, registered with Web Commerce Communications Limited dba WebNic.cc.
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.
Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on April 18, 2022; the Forum received payment on April 18, 2022.
On April 18, 2022, Web Commerce Communications Limited dba WebNic.cc confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <zapposint.com> domain name is registered with Web Commerce Communications Limited dba WebNic.cc and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Web Commerce Communications Limited dba WebNic.cc has verified that Respondent is bound by the Web Commerce Communications Limited dba WebNic.cc 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 April 19, 2022, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of May 9, 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@zapposint.com. Also on April 19, 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 May 15, 2022, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Paul M. DeCicco 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 contends as follows:
Complainant, Zappos IP LLC, offers online retail services.
Complainant asserts rights in the ZAPPOS mark based upon registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”).
Respondent’s <zapposint.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark because it contains the ZAPPOS mark in its entirety, merely adding the term “int” and the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com” to form the disputed domain name.
Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <zapposint.com> domain name. Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant’s ZAPPOS mark and is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name. Additionally, Respondent does not use the domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to pass off as Complainant and offering competing services.
Respondent registered and uses the <zapposint.com> domain name in bad faith. Respondent uses the disputed domain name to compete with Complainant through its use of Complainant’s mark creating a false impression of an affiliation with Complainant while offering competing services. Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the ZAPPOS mark when registering the <zapposint.com> domain name.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant has rights in the ZAPPOS trademark.
Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and had not been authorized to use Complainant’s trademark in any capacity.
Respondent registered the at‑issue domain names after Complainant acquired rights in the ZAPPOS trademark.
Respondent uses the at-issue domain names to address a competing 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 at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.
Complainant’s ownership of a USPTO trademark registration for its ZAPPOS mark establishes Complainant’s rights in such mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4 (a)(I). See BGK Trademark Holdings, LLC & Beyoncé Giselle Knowles-Carter v. Chanphut / Beyonce Shop, FA 1626334 (Forum Aug. 3, 2015) (asserting that Complainant’s registration with the USPTO (or any other governmental authority) adequately proves its rights under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)).
The at-issue domain name contains Complainant’s ZAPPOS trademark followed by the term “int”. The domain name concludes with the “.com” top level. The differences between <zapposint.com>and Complainant’s ZAPPOS trademark are insufficient to distinguish the domain name from Complainant’s trademark for the purposes of the Policy. Therefore, the Panel finds pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) that Respondent’s <zapposint.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ZAPPOS trademark. See 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.”); see also Dell Inc. v. Protection of Private Person / Privacy Protection, FA 1681432 (Forum Aug. 1, 2016) (“A TLD (whether a gTLD, sTLD or ccTLD) is disregarded under a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis because domain name syntax requires TLDs. Likewise, the absence of spaces must be disregarded under a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis because domain name syntax prohibits them.”).
Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006). Since Respondent failed to respond, Complainant’s prima facie showing acts conclusively.
Respondent lacks both rights and legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant’s trademark in any capacity and, as discussed below, there are no Policy ¶ 4(c) circumstances from which the Panel might find that Respondent has rights or interests in respect of the at‑issue domain name. See Emerson Electric Co. v. golden humble / golden globals, FA 1787128 (Forum June 11, 2018) (“lack of evidence in the record to indicate a respondent is authorized to use [the] complainant’s mark may support a finding that [the] respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)”).
The WHOIS information for the at-issue domain name identifies the domain name’s registrant as “sdfa dfdafa / adfdaffd” and the record before the Panel contains no evidence tending to suggest that Respondent is commonly known by either the <zapposint.com> domain name or by ZAPPOS. The Panel therefore concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by the <zapposint.com> domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Instron Corp. v. Kaner, FA 768859 (Forum Sept. 21, 2006) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain names because the WHOIS information listed “Andrew Kaner c/o Electromatic a/k/a Electromatic Equip't” as the registrant and there was no other evidence in the record to suggest that the respondent was commonly known by the domain names in dispute).
Respondent uses the <zapposint.com> domain name to pass itself off as Complainant and address a website offering products similar or identical to those offered by Complainant. To wit, while boldly displaying Complainant’s trademark and appearing to be sponsored by Complainant the website supports an alternative online store that competes with Complainant. Respondent’s use of the <zapposint.com> domain name in this manner fails to suggest either a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). 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 also Upwork Global Inc. v. Shoaib Malik, FA 1654759 (Forum Feb. 3, 2016) (finding that Complainant provides freelance talent services, and that Respondent competes with Complainant by promoting freelance talent services through the disputed domain’s resolving webpage, which is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor is it a legitimate noncommercial or fair use).
Given the forgoing, Complainant satisfies its initial burden and conclusively demonstrates Respondent’s lack of rights and lack of interests in respect of the at-issue domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
As discussed below without limitation, bad faith circumstances are present which permit the Panel to conclude that Respondent acted in bad faith pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
First and as mentioned above regarding rights and legitimate interests Respondent uses <zapposint.com> to pass itself off as Complainant and offer a competing online store. Doing so shows Respondent’s bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv). See LoanDepot.com, LLC v. Kaolee (Kay) Vang-Thao, FA1762308 (Forum Jan. 9, 2018) (Finding that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to offer competing loan services disrupts Complainant’s business under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)); 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).”).
Moreover, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the <zapposint.com>mark when it registered <zapposint.com> as a domain name. Respondent’s actual knowledge is evident from the notoriety of Complainant’s mark and from Respondent’s use of the <zapposint.com> domain name as discussed above. Respondent’s registration and use of a confusingly similar domain name with knowledge of Complainant’s rights in such domain name further shows Respondent’s bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Norgren GmbH v. Domain Admin / Private Registrations Aktien Gesellschaft, FA1501001599884 (Forum Feb. 25, 2014) (holding that the respondent had actual knowledge of the complainant and its rights in the mark, thus demonstrating bad faith registration under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii), where the respondent was using the disputed domain name to purposely host links related to the complainant’s field of operation).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <zapposint.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist
Dated: May 16, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page