Blade HQ, LLC v. Ettouil Oualid / Apk4play
Claim Number: FA2207002006455
Complainant is Blade HQ, LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Daniel M. Staren of SNELL & WILMER L.L.P., Arizona, USA. Respondent is Ettouil Oualid / Apk4play (“Respondent”), Morocco.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <blade-hq.com>, (‘the Domain Name’) registered with NameCheap, Inc..
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 July 29, 2022; the Forum received payment on July 29, 2022.
On July 29, 2022, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <blade-hq.com> 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 August 1, 2022, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 22, 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@blade-hq.com. Also on August 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 August 23, 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 is the owner of the trade mark BLADE HQ registered, inter alia, in the USA for on line services related to knives with first use recorded as 2004.
The Domain Name registered in 2021 is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark adding only a hyphen and the gTLD ‘.com’ which do not prevent such confusing similarity.
The Respondent does not have rights or legitimate rights in the Domain Name, is not commonly known by it and has not been authorized by the Complainant.
The Respondent registered the Domain Name to direct it to a competing site offering competing products which uses the Complainant’s mark incorporated in its masthead to confuse Internet users into believing the web site and the Domain Name are associated with the Complainant which is not a bona fide offering of goods or services. The Domain Name has been registered and used in bad faith to confuse Internet users and disrupt the Complainant’s business.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
The Complainant is the owner of the trade mark BLADE HQ registered, inter alia, in the USA for on line services related to knives with first use recorded as 2004.
The Domain Name registered in 2021 has been used for a competing site offering competing products using the Complainant’s mark in its masthead.
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 consists of the Complainant's BLADE HQ mark (which is registered, inter alia, in the USA for on line retail services relating to knives since 2004), a hyphen and the gTLD ‘.com’.
The gTLD ‘.com’ does not serve to distinguish the Domain Name from the Complainant’s mark, which is the distinctive component of the Domain Name. 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).
A hyphen does not prevent that domain name being confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark. See Health Devices Corp. v. Aspen STC, FA 158254 (Forum July 1, 2003) (The addition of punctuation marks such as hyphens is irrelevant in the determination of confusing similarity pursuant to Policy 4(a)(i).).
Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar for the purpose of the Policy to a mark in which the Complainant has rights.
As such the Panel holds that Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been satisfied.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant has not authorized the use of its mark. There is no evidence or reason to suggest the Respondent recorded as Ettouil Oualid / Apk4play in the WhoIS details is 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 is commercial and so cannot be legitimate non commercial fair use.
The web site attached to the Domain Name purports to offer competing services to the Complainant incorporating the Complainant’s mark in its masthead. It does not make it clear that there is no connection with the Complainant. The Panel finds this use is confusing. 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 advertise services which competed with the Complainant's business did not constitute a bona fide use of goods and services.).
The Respondent has not answered this Complaint or provided any explanation.
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 Panel 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 incorporates the Complainant’s mark in its masthead and offers competing services.
Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain Internet users to his 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 or services offered on it under Policy 4(b)(iv) likely to disrupt the business of the Complainant under Policy 4(b)(iii). See Allianz of AM. Corp v. Bond, FA 680624 (Forum June 2, 2006) (finding bad faith registration and use where the respondent was diverting Internet users searching for the complainant to its own website).
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 para 4(b)(iii) and (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 <blade-hq.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Dawn Osborne, Panelist
Dated: August 24, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page