Wolverine World Wide, Inc. v. Domain Admin / Whoisprotection.cc / Client Care / Web Commerce Communications Limited / Koch Paul / Ulrich Freitag / Aragon Robert / Julius Bergman / Karola Kremer / Hallesches Ufer 21 / Kevin AUSTERLITZ / Uwe SANGER / Stefan SCHULZE / Osterhagen Manuela
Claim Number: FA2208002009101
Complainant is Wolverine World Wide, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Malaina J Weldy of Warner Norcross + Judd LLP, Michigan, USA. Respondent is Domain Admin / Whoisprotection.cc / Client Care / Web Commerce Communications Limited / Koch Paul / Ulrich Freitag / Aragon Robert / Julius Bergman / Karola Kremer / Hallesches Ufer 21 / Kevin AUSTERLITZ / Uwe SANGER / Stefan SCHULZE / Osterhagen Manuela (“Respondent”), Malaysia / France / Germany.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <saucony-se.com>, <sauconyfinland.com>, <sauconynorge.com>, <saucony-nz.com>, <merrell-nz.com>, <merrellukboots.com>, <merrellbotas-mx.com>, <chacossandalsaustralia.com>, <sperryshoesmalaysia.com>, <chacouk.com>, <merrell-nederland.com>, <merrellbootsph.com>, <sauconysalgnorge.com>, <merrellchaussuresfrance.com>, <zapatillassauconychile.com>, <chacosingapore.com>, <chacoaustralia.com>, <sauconysverigerea.com>, <merrellshoeindia.com>, <merrell-it.com>, <sauconycostarica.com>, <merrellukoutletsale.com>, <sperryshoesspain.com>, <sauconyskorsverige.com>, <sauconyshoesza.com>, <sauconyoutletnorge.com>, <merrellusa.com>, <outletmerrellchile.com>, <chacocanada.com>, <chacofrance.com>, <merrellportugall.com>, <merrelargentinaoutlet.com>, <sauconyhrvatska.com>, <merrell-factoryoutlet.com>, <sperryayakkabi.com>, <chacobelgium.com>, <merrelhrvatska.com>, <merrell-ar.com>, <merrellargentinar.com>, <sauconyshoeireland.com>, <merrellclearanceuk.com>, <merrellshoeindiashop.com>, <chacoindia.com>, <merrellukoutlet.com>, <chaconederland.com>, <chacomalaysia.com>, <merrell-portugal.com>, <merrelloutletfactory.com>, <merrellcanadashoes.com>, <saucony-factoryoutlet.com>, <chaconzshop.com>, <merreloutletportugal.com>, <fabrikverkaufmerrellch.com>, <sperrycostarica.com>, <sperrybootsireland.com>, <sauconyportugalpt.com>, <chacoitalia.com>, <sperrysingaporestore.com>, <merrelosterreichoutlet.com>, <merrell-ph.com>, <sweatybettynederland.com>, <chacosandalscanada.com>, <chacosandalswebsite.com>, <merrellkengat.com>, <merrelloutletitalia.com>, <merrellportugallojas.com>, <kedsusasales.com>, <sauconyjoggesko.com>, <sauconycanadaoutlets.com>, <merrellbarefootshoesuk.com>, <merrellshoesclearanceuk.com>, <merrellshoes-outlet.com>, <merrellbootsuk.com>, <chacosnederland.com>, <chacosportugal.com>, <chacoportugal.com>, <keds-sverige.com>, <merrellportugal.org>, <merrelloutletpt.com>, <merrelloutletsuomi.com>, <merrellfactoryoutlets.com>, <sauconysrbija.com>, <merrellshoesstores.com>, <merrelnederland.com>, <merrell-italia.com>, <merrelindiaonline.com>, <merrellturkiyeshop.com>, <merrellcanada-clearance.com>, <merrellboots-canada.com>, <merrellaustria.com>, <merrellspain.com>, <chacoshoescanada.com>, <merrellsverige.com>, <chacosandalernorge.com>, <chaconorge.com>, <chaco-belgie.com>, <merrell-peru.com>, <sperry-deutschland.com>, <merrelloutletshop.com>, and <chacoscanadas.com>, (collectively “Domain Names”) registered with Alibaba.Com Singapore E-Commerce Private Limited, 1API GmbH, Key-Systems GmbH and NETIM SARL respectively.
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.
Nicholas J.T. Smith as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on August 19, 2022; the Forum received payment on August 19, 2022.
Between August 22, 2022 and August 23, 2022 each of Alibaba.Com Singapore E-Commerce Private Limited, 1API GmbH, Key-Systems GmbH and NETIM SARL confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <saucony-se.com>, <sauconyfinland.com>, <sauconynorge.com>, <saucony-nz.com>, <merrell-nz.com>, <merrellukboots.com>, <merrellbotas-mx.com>, <chacossandalsaustralia.com>, <sperryshoesmalaysia.com>, <chacouk.com>, <merrell-nederland.com>, <merrellbootsph.com>, <sauconysalgnorge.com>, <merrellchaussuresfrance.com>, <zapatillassauconychile.com>, <chacosingapore.com>, <chacoaustralia.com>, <sauconysverigerea.com>, <merrellshoeindia.com>, <merrell-it.com>, <sauconycostarica.com>, <merrellukoutletsale.com>, <sperryshoesspain.com>, <sauconyskorsverige.com>, <sauconyshoesza.com>, <sauconyoutletnorge.com>, <merrellusa.com>, <outletmerrellchile.com>, <chacocanada.com>, <chacofrance.com>, <merrellportugall.com>, <merrelargentinaoutlet.com>, <sauconyhrvatska.com>, <merrell-factoryoutlet.com>, <sperryayakkabi.com>, <chacobelgium.com>, <merrelhrvatska.com>, <merrell-ar.com>, <merrellargentinar.com>, <sauconyshoeireland.com>, <merrellclearanceuk.com>, <merrellshoeindiashop.com>, <chacoindia.com>, <merrellukoutlet.com>, <chaconederland.com>, <chacomalaysia.com>, <merrell-portugal.com>, <merrelloutletfactory.com>, <merrellcanadashoes.com>, <saucony-factoryoutlet.com>, <chaconzshop.com>, <merreloutletportugal.com>, <fabrikverkaufmerrellch.com>, <sperrycostarica.com>, <sperrybootsireland.com>, <sauconyportugalpt.com>, <chacoitalia.com>, <sperrysingaporestore.com>, <merrelosterreichoutlet.com>, <merrell-ph.com>, <sweatybettynederland.com>, <chacosandalscanada.com>, <chacosandalswebsite.com>, <merrellkengat.com>, <merrelloutletitalia.com>, <merrellportugallojas.com>, <kedsusasales.com>, <sauconyjoggesko.com>, <sauconycanadaoutlets.com>, <merrellbarefootshoesuk.com>, <merrellshoesclearanceuk.com>, <merrellshoes-outlet.com>, <merrellbootsuk.com>, <chacosnederland.com>, <chacosportugal.com>, <chacoportugal.com>, <keds-sverige.com>, <merrellportugal.org>, <merrelloutletpt.com>, <merrelloutletsuomi.com>, <merrellfactoryoutlets.com>, <sauconysrbija.com>, <merrellshoesstores.com>, <merrelnederland.com>, <merrell-italia.com>, <merrelindiaonline.com>, <merrellturkiyeshop.com>, <merrellcanada-clearance.com>, <merrellboots-canada.com>, <merrellaustria.com>, <merrellspain.com>, <chacoshoescanada.com>, <merrellsverige.com>, <chacosandalernorge.com>, <chaconorge.com>, <chaco-belgie.com>, <merrell-peru.com>, <sperry-deutschland.com>, <merrelloutletshop.com>, and <chacoscanadas.com> domain names are registered with them and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Alibaba.Com Singapore E-Commerce Private Limited, 1API GmbH, Key-Systems GmbH and NETIM SARL have each verified that Respondent is bound by their specific 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 25, 2022, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a English and German language Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 14, 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@saucony-se.com, postmaster@sauconyfinland.com, postmaster@sauconynorge.com, postmaster@saucony-nz.com, postmaster@merrell-nz.com, postmaster@merrellukboots.com, postmaster@merrellbotas-mx.com, postmaster@chacossandalsaustralia.com, postmaster@sperryshoesmalaysia.com, postmaster@chacouk.com, postmaster@merrell-nederland.com, postmaster@merrellbootsph.com, postmaster@sauconysalgnorge.com, postmaster@merrellchaussuresfrance.com, postmaster@zapatillassauconychile.com, postmaster@chacosingapore.com, postmaster@chacoaustralia.com, postmaster@sauconysverigerea.com, postmaster@merrellshoeindia.com, postmaster@merrell-it.com, postmaster@sauconycostarica.com, postmaster@merrellukoutletsale.com, postmaster@sperryshoesspain.com, postmaster@sauconyskorsverige.com, postmaster@sauconyshoesza.com, postmaster@sauconyoutletnorge.com, postmaster@merrellusa.com, postmaster@outletmerrellchile.com, postmaster@chacocanada.com, postmaster@chacofrance.com, postmaster@merrellportugall.com, postmaster@merrelargentinaoutlet.com, postmaster@sauconyhrvatska.com, postmaster@merrell-factoryoutlet.com, postmaster@sperryayakkabi.com, postmaster@chacobelgium.com, postmaster@merrelhrvatska.com, postmaster@merrell-ar.com, postmaster@merrellargentinar.com, postmaster@sauconyshoeireland.com, postmaster@merrellclearanceuk.com, postmaster@merrellshoeindiashop.com, postmaster@chacoindia.com, postmaster@merrellukoutlet.com, postmaster@chaconederland.com, postmaster@chacomalaysia.com, postmaster@merrell-portugal.com, postmaster@merrelloutletfactory.com, postmaster@merrellcanadashoes.com, postmaster@saucony-factoryoutlet.com, postmaster@chaconzshop.com, postmaster@merreloutletportugal.com, postmaster@fabrikverkaufmerrellch.com, postmaster@sperrycostarica.com, postmaster@sperrybootsireland.com, postmaster@sauconyportugalpt.com, postmaster@chacoitalia.com, postmaster@sperrysingaporestore.com, postmaster@merrelosterreichoutlet.com, postmaster@merrell-ph.com, postmaster@sweatybettynederland.com, postmaster@chacosandalscanada.com, postmaster@chacosandalswebsite.com, postmaster@merrellkengat.com, postmaster@merrelloutletitalia.com, postmaster@merrellportugallojas.com, postmaster@kedsusasales.com, postmaster@sauconyjoggesko.com, postmaster@sauconycanadaoutlets.com, postmaster@merrellbarefootshoesuk.com, postmaster@merrellshoesclearanceuk.com, postmaster@merrellshoes-outlet.com, postmaster@merrellbootsuk.com, postmaster@chacosnederland.com, postmaster@chacosportugal.com, postmaster@chacoportugal.com, postmaster@keds-sverige.com, postmaster@merrellportugal.org, postmaster@merrelloutletpt.com, postmaster@merrelloutletsuomi.com, postmaster@merrellfactoryoutlets.com, postmaster@sauconysrbija.com, postmaster@merrellshoesstores.com, postmaster@merrelnederland.com, postmaster@merrell-italia.com, postmaster@merrelindiaonline.com, postmaster@merrellturkiyeshop.com, postmaster@merrellcanada-clearance.com, postmaster@merrellboots-canada.com, postmaster@merrellaustria.com, postmaster@merrellspain.com, postmaster@chacoshoescanada.com, postmaster@merrellsverige.com, postmaster@chacosandalernorge.com, postmaster@chaconorge.com, postmaster@chaco-belgie.com, postmaster@merrell-peru.com, postmaster@sperry-deutschland.com, postmaster@merrelloutletshop.com, postmaster@chacoscanadas.com. Also on August 25, 2022, the English and German language 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 September 23, 2022, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Nicholas J.T. Smith 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 Names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
PRELIMINARY ISSUE: MULTIPLE RESPONDENTS
In the instant proceedings, Complainant has alleged that the entities which control the Domain Names at issue are effectively controlled by the same person and/or entity, which is operating under several aliases. Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”) provides that a “complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder.” The Panel notes that 88 of the 100 Domain Names are registered to the same entity, Web Commerce Communications Limited Client Care, and thus it is only necessary to consider whether the remaining 12 Domain Names are connected to Web Commerce Communications Limited Client Care.
Complainant has provided detailed evidence of the connections between each of the Domain Names and in particular that: 1) the Domain Names are all similar variants of Complainant’s trade marks containing one of Complainant’s trade marks and descriptive terms 2) 98 of the 100 domain names were registered in the last 18 months, with several being registered on the same day 3) A large number of the domain names share the same IP location (28 of the 100 have the same Californian IP location and other groups of the Domain Names share other locations 5) most of the Domain Names (“Active Domain Names”) resolve or have resolved to active websites (“Respondent’s Websites”). Many of the Respondent’s Websites are very similar to each other, featuring identical designs, grammatical errors, shipping information, privacy policies and sharing photographs taken from the Complainant’s websites and reproducing Complainant’s logos. This evidence, in the Panel’s opinion, strongly suggests that the Domain Names are owned/controlled by a single Respondent; were the named Respondents unrelated, it would be unlikely that multiple unconnected entities would register very similar domain names over the course of an 18 month period and point them to websites created with identical templates, with identical terms and conditions operating on an identical business model.
In light of these contentions, which none of the identified Respondents deny, the Panel concludes that, on the balance of probabilities, the Domain Names are commonly owned/controlled by a single Respondent who is using multiple aliases. Hereafter the single Respondent will be referred to as “Respondent” for this Decision.
PRELIMINARY ISSUE: LANGUAGE OF PROCEEDING
The language of the Registration Agreement for the <merrellportugal.org> domain name is German (the language of the Registration Agreement for the remaining domain names is English). The Complaint has been provided in English.
It is established practice to take UDRP Rules 10(b) and (c) into consideration for the purpose of determining the language of the proceeding to ensure fairness and justice to both parties. Factors which previous panels have seen as particularly compelling are: WHOIS information which establishes Respondent in a country which would demonstrate familiarity with the English language, filing of a trademark registration with an entity which shows an understanding of the English language, and any evidence (or lack thereof) exhibiting Respondent’s understanding of the language requested by Complainant. See The Argento Wine Company Limited v. Argento Beijing Trading Company, D2009-0610 (WIPO July 1, 2009) (panel exercising discretion in deciding that the language of the proceedings advance in English, contrary to the Registration Agreement, based on evidence that respondent has command of the language). Further, the Panel may weigh the relative time and expense in enforcing the German language agreement, which would result in prejudice toward either party. See Finter Bank Zurich v. Shumin Peng, D2006-0432 (WIPO June 12, 2006) (deciding that the proceeding should be in English, stating, “It is important that the language finally decided by the Panel for the proceeding is not prejudicial to either one of the parties in his or her ability to articulate the arguments for the case.”) and Zappos.com, Inc. v. Zufu aka Huahaotrade, Case No. D2008-1191 (WIPO October 15, 2008) (holding that proceedings could be conducted in English even though the registration agreement was in Chinese where “the disputed domain resolves to a website [that] is exclusively in English, from which can be reasonably presumed that the Respondent has the ability to communicate in English in order to conduct his business over the website in English”)
Pursuant to UDRP Rule 11(a), the Panel finds that persuasive evidence has been adduced by Complainant to suggest the likely possibility that the Respondent is conversant and proficient in the English language. The Panel has already found that the registrant of <merrellportugal.org> domain name is the same registrant as the remaining Domain Names (each of which was registered through English-language agreements). The Respondent’s Websites are in the English language. The Panel also notes the absence of any response by Respondent indicating a preference that the proceeding continue in German. Given the alternative is to order that the proceeding continue in German, notwithstanding that 99 of the 100 Domain Names are registered using to an English-language agreement, after considering the circumstances of the present case, the Panel decides that the proceeding should continue in English.
A. Complainant
Complainant, Wolverine World Wide, Inc., sells footwear and activewear apparel. Complainant asserts rights in the MERRELL, SAUCONY, CHACO, KEDS, SPERRY, and SWEATY BETTY marks (“Complainant’s Marks”) based upon registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (CHACO – Reg. No. 1,894,639, registered May 16, 1995; SWEATY BETTY – Reg. No. 3,250,398, registered June 12, 2007; KEDS – Reg. No. 114,848, registered January 2, 1917; SAUCONY – Reg. No. 1,356,744, registered August 27, 1985; SPERRY – Reg. No. 732,519, registered June 5, 1962; MERRELL – Reg. No. 1,337,440, registered May 21, 1985). Respondent’s <saucony-se.com>, <sauconyfinland.com>, <sauconynorge.com>, <saucony-nz.com>, <merrell-nz.com>, <merrellukboots.com>, <merrellbotas-mx.com>, <chacossandalsaustralia.com>, <sperryshoesmalaysia.com>, <chacouk.com>, <merrell-nederland.com>, <merrellbootsph.com>, <sauconysalgnorge.com>, <merrellchaussuresfrance.com>, <zapatillassauconychile.com>, <chacosingapore.com>, <chacoaustralia.com>, <sauconysverigerea.com>, <merrellshoeindia.com>, <merrell-it.com>, <sauconycostarica.com>, <merrellukoutletsale.com>, <sperryshoesspain.com>, <sauconyskorsverige.com>, <sauconyshoesza.com>, <sauconyoutletnorge.com>, <merrellusa.com>, <outletmerrellchile.com>, <chacocanada.com>, <chacofrance.com>, <merrellportugall.com>, <merrelargentinaoutlet.com>, <sauconyhrvatska.com>, <merrell-factoryoutlet.com>, <sperryayakkabi.com>, <chacobelgium.com>, <merrelhrvatska.com>, <merrell-ar.com>, <merrellargentinar.com>, <sauconyshoeireland.com>, <merrellclearanceuk.com>, <merrellshoeindiashop.com>, <chacoindia.com>, <merrellukoutlet.com>, <chaconederland.com>, <chacomalaysia.com>, <merrell-portugal.com>, <merrelloutletfactory.com>, <merrellcanadashoes.com>, <saucony-factoryoutlet.com>, <chaconzshop.com>, <merreloutletportugal.com>, <fabrikverkaufmerrellch.com>, <sperrycostarica.com>, <sperrybootsireland.com>, <sauconyportugalpt.com>, <chacoitalia.com>, <sperrysingaporestore.com>, <merrelosterreichoutlet.com>, <merrell-ph.com>, <sweatybettynederland.com>, <chacosandalscanada.com>, <chacosandalswebsite.com>, <merrellkengat.com>, <merrelloutletitalia.com>, <merrellportugallojas.com>, <kedsusasales.com>, <sauconyjoggesko.com>, <sauconycanadaoutlets.com>, <merrellbarefootshoesuk.com>, <merrellshoesclearanceuk.com>, <merrellshoes-outlet.com>, <merrellbootsuk.com>, <chacosnederland.com>, <chacosportugal.com>, <chacoportugal.com>, <keds-sverige.com>, <merrellportugal.org>, <merrelloutletpt.com>, <merrelloutletsuomi.com>, <merrellfactoryoutlets.com>, <sauconysrbija.com>, <merrellshoesstores.com>, <merrelnederland.com>, <merrell-italia.com>, <merrelindiaonline.com>, <merrellturkiyeshop.com>, <merrellcanada-clearance.com>, <merrellboots-canada.com>, <merrellaustria.com>, <merrellspain.com>, <chacoshoescanada.com>, <merrellsverige.com>, <chacosandalernorge.com>, <chaconorge.com>, <chaco-belgie.com>, <merrell-peru.com>, <sperry-deutschland.com>, <merrelloutletshop.com>, and <chacoscanadas.com> domain names are each confusingly similar to one of the Complainant’s Marks because they contain one of the Complainant’s Marks along with generic words (being descriptive or geographical), minor typographical errors or hyphens and the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).
Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names. Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant’s Marks and is not commonly known by the Domain Names. Respondent is not using the Domain Names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services nor for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use because Respondent uses the Active Domain Names to impersonate Complainant for the purpose of offering goods that compete with Complainant’s footwear products. With respect to the Domain Names that are not Active Domain Names (“Inactive Domain Names”), Respondent has not made any demonstrable preparations to use them at all.
Respondent registered and uses the Domain Names in bad faith because Respondent uses the Active Domain Names to pass off as Complainant in an attempt to disrupt Complainant’s business for Respondent’s own commercial gain by offering footwear in competition with Complainant at the Respondent’s Websites. With respect to the Inactive Domain Names, Respondent has made no use of these domain names. Respondent acted with actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the Complainant’s Marks as shown by the Respondent’s Websites, which reproduce Complainant’s logos and photos and offer competing goods.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant holds trademark rights for the MERRELL, SAUCONY, CHACO, KEDS, SPERRY, and SWEATY BETTY marks. Each of the Domain Names is confusingly similar to one of Complainant’s MERRELL, SAUCONY, CHACO, KEDS, SPERRY, and SWEATY BETTY marks. Complainant has established that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names and that Respondent registered and has used the Domain Names in bad faith.
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”).
Complainant has rights in the MERRELL, SAUCONY, CHACO, KEDS, SPERRY, and SWEATY BETTY marks under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through its registration of the marks with the USPTO (CHACO – Reg. No. 1,894,639, registered May 16, 1995; SWEATY BETTY – Reg. No. 3,250,398, registered June 12, 2007; KEDS – Reg. No. 114,848, registered January 2, 1917; SAUCONY – Reg. No. 1,356,744, registered August 27, 1985; SPERRY – Reg. No. 732,519, registered June 5, 1962; MERRELL – Reg. No. 1,337,440, registered May 21, 1985). Registration of a mark with the USPTO is sufficient to establish rights in that mark. See DIRECTV, LLC v. The Pearline Group, FA 1818749 (Forum Dec. 30, 2018) (“Complainant’s ownership of a USPTO registration for DIRECTV demonstrate its rights in such mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”).
The Panel finds that each of the Domain Names is confusingly similar to one of the Complainant’s Marks as they each incorporate one of the marks in its entirety while adding generic and/or geographic terms (“se”, “outlet” and “-nz” for example) and the “.com” gTLD. In some cases the Domain Names also contain minor misspellings (“merrel” or “portugall” for example) that do not impact on the recognizability of the trade mark within the Domain Name. Such changes are insufficient to distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis. See Microsoft Corporation v. Thong Tran Thanh, FA 1653187 (Forum Jan. 21, 2016) (determining that confusing similarity exists where [a disputed domain name] contains Complainant’s entire mark and differs only by the addition of a generic or descriptive phrase and top-level domain); see also General Motors LLC v. Domain Admin, Privacy Protection Service INC d/b/a PrivacyProtect.org, FA 1656166 (Forum Feb. 12, 2016) (finding respondent’s <gm-uzbekistan.com> domain name confusingly similar to complainant’s GM mark as the addition of the geographic term “-uzbekistan” is inconsequential to a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis); see also Morgan Stanley v. Francis Mccarthy / Baltec Marine Llc, FA 1785347 (Forum June 8, 2018) (“The [<morganstonley.com> and <morganstainley.com>] Domain Names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s marks, as they fully incorporate the MORGAN STANLEY mark, varying it only by subtle misspellings, omitting a space between the words, and adding the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) ‘.com.’”); see also Trip Network Inc. v. Alviera, FA 914943 (Forum Mar. 27, 2007) (finding top-level domains are irrelevant for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis).
The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant alleges that Respondent holds no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names. In order for Complainant to succeed under this element, it must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the Domain Names under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006) and AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Forum Sept. 25, 2006) (“Complainant must first make a prima facie showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names, which burden is light. If Complainant satisfies its burden, then the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain names.”). The Panel holds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case.
Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names as Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Names, nor has Complainant authorized Respondent to use the Complainant’s Marks. Respondent has no relationship, affiliation, connection, endorsement or association with Complainant. WHOIS information can help support a finding that a respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, especially where a privacy service has been engaged. 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)); see also Kohler Co. v. Privacy Service, FA1505001621573 (Forum July 2, 2015) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) where “Privacy Service” was listed as the registrant of the disputed domain name). The WHOIS information of record lists “Domain Admin / Whoisprotection.cc / Client Care / Web Commerce Communications Limited / Koch Paul / Ulrich Freitag / Aragon Robert / Julius Bergman / Karola Kremer / Hallesches Ufer 21 / Kevin AUSTERLITZ / Uwe SANGER / Stefan SCHULZE / Osterhagen Manuela” as the registrants of record. Coupled with Complainant’s unrebutted assertions as to absence of any affiliation or authorization between the parties, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Names in accordance with Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
Each of the Active Domain Names (the Inactive Domain Names, absent other evidence, can be presumed to be inactive pending use for a similar purpose) resolves or, as is clear from the uncontradicted evidence in the Complaint, has resolved one of the Respondent’s Websites. These websites, through the reproduction of one of the Complainant’s Marks, Complainant’s logos and reference to Complainant’s products, each pass themself off as an official website of the Complainant for the purpose of selling unauthorized versions of Complainant’s goods, in direct competition with Complainant’s merchandise. The use of a confusingly similar domain name to resolve to a webpage that directly offers unauthorized versions of a complainant’s goods or goods or services that directly compete with a complainant does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use; indeed it provides a false impression that the Respondent is affiliated with or authorized by Complainant. See BALENCIAGA SA v. ling lin, FA 1768542 (Forum Feb. 16, 2018) (“The disputed domain names incorporate Complainant's registered mark, and are being used for websites that prominently display Complainant's mark and logo, along with apparent images of Complainant's products, offering them for sale at discounted prices. The sites do not disclaim any connection with Complainant, and in fact seem to be designed to create an appearance of such a connection. Such use does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests.”). See also General Motors LLC v. MIKE LEE, FA 1659965 (Forum Mar. 10, 2016) (“use of a domain to sell products and/or services that compete directly with a complainant’s business does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”)
The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
The Panel finds on the balance of probabilities that, at the time of registration of the Domain Names, Respondent had actual knowledge of the Complainant’s Marks since each of the Respondent’s Websites pass themself off as an official website of the Complainant and as such reproduce material from Complainant and make repeated references to Complainant and its products. Furthermore, there is no obvious explanation, nor has one been provided, for an entity to register 100 domain names that contain one of the Complainant’s Marks and use the majority of them to redirect visitors to similar websites selling goods in direct competition with the Complainant under the Complainant’s Marks other than to take advantage of Complainant’s reputation in the Complainant’s Marks. In the absence of rights or legitimate interests of its own this demonstrates registration in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
The Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the Domain Names in bad faith to create confusion with Complainant’s Marks for commercial gain by using (or in the case of the Inactive Domain Names holding the domain names pending use) the confusingly similar Domain Names to resolve to websites mimicking Complainant’s websites and offering unauthorized versions of Complainant’s products in direct competition with the Complainant’s products. Using a confusingly similar domain name to trade upon the goodwill of a complainant can evince bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See 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).”). See also 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.”).
The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied 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 <saucony-se.com>, <sauconyfinland.com>, <sauconynorge.com>, <saucony-nz.com>, <merrell-nz.com>, <merrellukboots.com>, <merrellbotas-mx.com>, <chacossandalsaustralia.com>, <sperryshoesmalaysia.com>, <chacouk.com>, <merrell-nederland.com>, <merrellbootsph.com>, <sauconysalgnorge.com>, <merrellchaussuresfrance.com>, <zapatillassauconychile.com>, <chacosingapore.com>, <chacoaustralia.com>, <sauconysverigerea.com>, <merrellshoeindia.com>, <merrell-it.com>, <sauconycostarica.com>, <merrellukoutletsale.com>, <sperryshoesspain.com>, <sauconyskorsverige.com>, <sauconyshoesza.com>, <sauconyoutletnorge.com>, <merrellusa.com>, <outletmerrellchile.com>, <chacocanada.com>, <chacofrance.com>, <merrellportugall.com>, <merrelargentinaoutlet.com>, <sauconyhrvatska.com>, <merrell-factoryoutlet.com>, <sperryayakkabi.com>, <chacobelgium.com>, <merrelhrvatska.com>, <merrell-ar.com>, <merrellargentinar.com>, <sauconyshoeireland.com>, <merrellclearanceuk.com>, <merrellshoeindiashop.com>, <chacoindia.com>, <merrellukoutlet.com>, <chaconederland.com>, <chacomalaysia.com>, <merrell-portugal.com>, <merrelloutletfactory.com>, <merrellcanadashoes.com>, <saucony-factoryoutlet.com>, <chaconzshop.com>, <merreloutletportugal.com>, <fabrikverkaufmerrellch.com>, <sperrycostarica.com>, <sperrybootsireland.com>, <sauconyportugalpt.com>, <chacoitalia.com>, <sperrysingaporestore.com>, <merrelosterreichoutlet.com>, <merrell-ph.com>, <sweatybettynederland.com>, <chacosandalscanada.com>, <chacosandalswebsite.com>, <merrellkengat.com>, <merrelloutletitalia.com>, <merrellportugallojas.com>, <kedsusasales.com>, <sauconyjoggesko.com>, <sauconycanadaoutlets.com>, <merrellbarefootshoesuk.com>, <merrellshoesclearanceuk.com>, <merrellshoes-outlet.com>, <merrellbootsuk.com>, <chacosnederland.com>, <chacosportugal.com>, <chacoportugal.com>, <keds-sverige.com>, <merrellportugal.org>, <merrelloutletpt.com>, <merrelloutletsuomi.com>, <merrellfactoryoutlets.com>, <sauconysrbija.com>, <merrellshoesstores.com>, <merrelnederland.com>, <merrell-italia.com>, <merrelindiaonline.com>, <merrellturkiyeshop.com>, <merrellcanada-clearance.com>, <merrellboots-canada.com>, <merrellaustria.com>, <merrellspain.com>, <chacoshoescanada.com>, <merrellsverige.com>, <chacosandalernorge.com>, <chaconorge.com>, <chaco-belgie.com>, <merrell-peru.com>, <sperry-deutschland.com>, <merrelloutletshop.com>, and <chacoscanadas.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Nicholas J.T. Smith, Panelist
Dated: September 26, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page