Roex Inc. v. Richard Schnnel
Claim Number: FA0709001073963
Complainant is Roex Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Jay
H. Geller, of Jay H. Geller a Prof. Corp., West Tower
Suite 4000, 2425 W. Olympic Bl.,
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN
NAME
The domain name at issue is <thetruthaboutnutrition.com>, registered with Schlund+Partner Ag.
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.
James A. Carmody, Esq., as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to
the National Arbitration Forum electronically on
On
On September 17, 2007, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of October 8, 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 postmaster@thetruthaboutnutrition.com by e-mail.
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On
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 <thetruthaboutnutrition.com> domain name is identical to Complainant’s THE TRUTH ABOUT NUTRITION mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <thetruthaboutnutrition.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <thetruthaboutnutrition.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Roex Inc.,
registered its THE TRUTH ABOUT NUTRITION
mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No.
2,934,179 issued
Respondent, Richard Schnnel,
registered the disputed 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 must first establish its rights in the THE TRUTH ABOUT NUTRITION
mark. Complainant is able to establish
rights in the mark dating back to its USPTO filing date of
The <thetruthaboutnutrition.com>
domain name
simply removes the spaces and appends Complainant’s THE TRUTH ABOUT NUTRITION
mark with the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.” Accordingly, the Panel finds that the
disputed domain is identical to Complainant’s mark pursuant to Policy ¶
4(a)(i). See
The Panel concludes that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶
4(a)(i).
Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) requires Complainant to make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks
rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Panel finds that Complainant’s allegation
that Respondent lacks such rights and interests is sufficient to shift the
burden to Respondent to prove that rights or legitimate interests exist. See G.D. Searle v. Martin Mktg., FA
118277 (Nat. Arb. Forum
In this case, Respondent did not submit a Response, permitting the Panel to presume that it lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. See Charles Jourdan Holding AG v. AAIM, D2000-0403 (WIPO June 27, 2000) (finding it appropriate for the panel to draw adverse inferences from the respondent’s failure to reply to the complaint); see also Parfums Christian Dior v. QTR Corp., D2000-0023 (WIPO Mar. 9, 2000) (finding that by not submitting a response, the respondent has failed to invoke any circumstance which could demonstrate any rights or legitimate interests in the domain name). Although no further analysis is required, the Panel will now examine the evidence to determine if Respondent’s rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name exist under Policy ¶ 4(c).
Nothing in the record, including the WHOIS information,
suggests that Respondent, “Richard Schnnel,” is
commonly known by the <thetruthaboutnutrition.com> domain name.
Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent has not satisfied Policy
¶ 4(c)(ii). See Am.
Online, Inc. v. World Photo Video & Imaging Corp., FA 109031 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 13, 2002) (finding
that the respondent was not commonly known by <aolcamera.com> or
<aolcameras.com> because the respondent
was doing business as “Sunset Camera” and “World Photo Video &
Imaging Corp.”); see also Am. W. Airlines, Inc.
v. Paik, FA 206396 (Nat. Arb. Forum
Further, the disputed domain name resolves to a website that
has no active use. Such inactivity does
not meet the criteria of a bona fide
offering of services or goods or a noncommercial or fair use as required by the
Policy. Accordingly the Panel concludes
that Respondent is unable to establish rights or legitimate interests under
Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or 4(c)(iii). See Pharmacia & Upjohn AB v. Romero,
D2000-1273 (WIPO Nov. 13, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests
where the respondent failed to submit a response to the complaint and had made
no use of the domain name in question); see
also Vestel Elektronik Sanayi ve Ticaret AS v. Kahveci, D2000-1244 (WIPO
Nov. 11, 2000) (“Merely registering the domain name is not sufficient to
establish rights or legitimate interests for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of
the Policy.”).
The Panel concludes that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶
4(a)(ii).
Respondent has made no active use of the disputed domain
name which was registered nearly four years ago. The Panel finds this conduct indicative of
bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See DCI S.A. v. Link Commercial Corp., D2000-1232 (WIPO Dec. 7, 2000)
(concluding that the respondent’s passive holding of the domain name satisfies
the requirement of ¶ 4(a)(iii) of the Policy); see also Mondich v. Brown, D2000-0004 (WIPO Feb. 16, 2000) (holding
that the respondent’s failure to develop its website in a two year period
raises the inference of registration in bad faith).
The Panel concludes that 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 <thetruthaboutnutrition.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
James A. Carmody, Esq., Panelist
Dated: October 23, 2007
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum