JELD-WEN, inc. v.
Claim Number: FA0707001045325
Complainant is JELD-WEN, inc. (“Complainant”), represented by John
C. McElwaine, of Nelson Mullins Riley &
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <jeld-we.com>, registered with Capitoldomains, 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.
Bruce E. Meyerson as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to
the National Arbitration Forum electronically on
On August 3, 2007, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of August 23, 2007 by which Respondent could file a response to the Complaint, was transmitted to Respondent via e-mail, post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts, and to firstname.lastname@example.org by e-mail.
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the National Arbitration 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." Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the National Arbitration 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 makes the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s <jeld-we.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s JELD-WEN mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <jeld-we.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <jeld-we.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, JELD-WEN, inc., is a well-known company that serves as a comprehensive source for wood, vinyl and aluminum windows and doors. In connection with the provision of these services, Complainant has registered the JELD-WEN mark (Reg. No. 1,388,339 issued April 1, 1986) with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”).
Respondent registered the <jeld-we.com>
domain name on
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."
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(e), 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 and inferences set forth in the Complaint as true unless the evidence is clearly contradictory. See Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 31, 2000) (holding that the respondent’s failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of the complaint to be deemed true); see also Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009 (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000) (“In the absence of a response, it is appropriate to accept as true all allegations of the Complaint.”).
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.
Complainant asserts rights in the JELD-WEN mark through registration of the mark with the USPTO. The Panel finds that Complainant’s timely registration and subsequent use of the JELD-WEN mark sufficiently establishes rights in the mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Mothers Against Drunk Driving v. phix, FA 174052 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 25, 2003) (finding that the complainant’s registration of the MADD mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office established the complainant’s rights in the mark for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)); see also VICORP Rests., Inc. v. Triantafillos, FA 485933 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 14, 2005) (“Complainant has established rights in the BAKERS SQUARE mark by registering it with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”).”).
The disputed domain name contains a misspelled version of Complainant’s JELD-WEN mark, as well as the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.” The Panel finds that the elimination of a single letter creating a misspelling of a protected mark, combined with the addition of a gTLD in a domain name, fails to sufficiently distinguish the domain name from the mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Rollerblade, Inc. v. McCrady, D2000-0429 (WIPO June 25, 2000) (finding that the top level of the domain name such as “.net” or “.com” does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar); see also Reuters Ltd. v. Global Net 2000, Inc., D2000-0441 (WIPO July 13, 2000) (finding that a domain name which differs by only one letter from a trademark has a greater tendency to be confusingly similar to the trademark where the trademark is highly distinctive).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
In instances where Complainant has made a prima facie case in support of its allegations, the burden shifts to Respondent to set forth concrete evidence indicating that it has rights or legitimate interests in accordance with Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). F. Hoffman-La Roche AG v. Tomasso Di Salvatore, D2006-1417 (WIPO Feb. 1, 2007) (“Proper analysis of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy shows that the burden of proof shifts from the Complainant to the Respondent once the Complainant has made out a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or interests in the domain names.”). The Panel finds that this Complainant’s assertions are sufficient to establish a prima facie case for purposes of the Policy. Although Respondent has not responded to the Complaint, the Panel will nevertheless examine the record to determine if Respondent has rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c).
Respondent is directing the <jeld-we.com> domain name to a website that displays third-party links to websites that offer products that directly compete with Complainant’s business. The Panel finds that Respondent’s use is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Royal Bank of Scot. Group plc v. Demand Domains, FA 714952 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 2, 2006) (finding that the operation of a commercial web directory displaying various links to third-party websites was not a use in connection with 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), as the respondent presumably earned “click-through” fees for each consumer it redirected to other websites); see also Charles Letts & Co. v. Citipublications, FA 692150 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 17, 2006) (finding that the respondent’s use of a domain name that was confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark to display links to the complainant’s competitors did 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)).
An examination of Respondent’s WHOIS registration
information reveals that the registrant of the <jeld-we.com> domain name is “Caribbean Online
International Ltd.” In light of the lack
of evidence suggesting otherwise, the Panel finds that Respondent is not
commonly known by the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See America West Airlines, Inc. v.
Paik, FA 206396 (Nat. Arb. Forum
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
As indicated above, Respondent’s disputed domain name resolves to a website featuring links to various, third-party websites, some of which offer products in direct competition with those offered by Complainant. The Panel finds that Respondent’s use amounts to a disruption of Complainant’s business, thereby evincing registration and use in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See Tesco Pers. Fin. Ltd. v. Domain Mgmt. Services, FA 877982 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 13, 2007) (concluding that the use of a confusingly similar domain name to attract Internet users to a website containing commercial links to the websites of the complainant’s competitors represented bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)); see also Persohn v. Lim, FA 874447 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 19, 2007) (finding bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) where a respondent used the disputed domain name to operate a commercial search engine with links to the complainant’s competitors).
Presumably, for each misdirected Internet user who clicks on a link posted on Respondent’s <jeld-we.com> website, Respondent receives monetary benefit in the form of “click-through” advertising fees. Consequently, the Panel finds that Respondent’s use is one for commercial gain through creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark, which is evidence of registration and use in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Allianz of Am. Corp. v. Bond, FA 680624 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 2, 2006) (finding bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the respondent was diverting Internet users searching for the complainant to its own website and likely profiting from click-through fees); see also AltaVista Co. v. Krotov, D2000-1091 (WIPO Oct. 25, 2000) (finding bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the respondent’s domain name resolved to a website that offered links to third-party websites that offered services similar to the complainant’s services and merely took advantage of Internet user mistakes).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been satisfied.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <jeld-we.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Bruce E. Meyerson, Panelist
Dated: September 10, 2007
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National Arbitration Forum