Textron Innovations Inc. v. Bills Auto Sales
Claim Number: FA0712001119595
Complainant is Textron Innovations Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Paul
D. McGrady, of Greenberg Traurig, LLP,
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN
NAME
The domain name at issue is <ezgodealer.com>, registered with Godaddy.com, Inc.
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.
Judge Ralph Yachnin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to
the National Arbitration Forum electronically on
On
On December 18, 2007, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of January 7, 2008 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@ezgodealer.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 <ezgodealer.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s EZGO mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <ezgodealer.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <ezgodealer.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Textron Innovations Inc., markets golf carts,
utility carts, and other products around the world under the EZGO mark. Complainant registered the mark with the
United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) on
Respondent is currently using the <ezgodealer.com> domain name to pass itself off as Complainant’s official website, and purports to sell distributorship territories for Complainant’s products.
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 has registered the EZGO mark with the USPTO, and
therefore established rights to the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Innomed Techs., Inc. v. DRP Servs., FA 221171 (Nat. Arb. Forum
The <ezgodealer.com> domain name incorporates Complainant’s entire mark and includes the
generic term “dealer.” The inclusion of
the generic term does not distinguish the disputed domain name from
Complainant’s mark. Furthermore, the
addition of the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com” does not sufficiently
distinguish the disputed domain name from the EZGO mark because all domain
names are required to have a top-level domain.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to
the EZGO mark under 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 Arthur Guinness Son & Co. (
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Complainant contends that Respondent has neither rights nor
legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Complainant must first present a prima facie case establishing that
Respondent lacks all rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain
name. Once Complainant has met the
burden and made a prima facie case
supporting the assertion that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests,
the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate
interests in the disputed domain name.
The Panel finds that Complainant has demonstrated that Respondent lacks
rights and legitimate interests, and thus made a prima facie case pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See Compagnie Generale des Matieres Nucleaires
v. Greenpeace Int’l, D2001-0376 (WIPO
The Panel presumes that Respondent lacks all rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name because Respondent failed to answer the Complaint. See Am. Express Co. v. Fang Suhendro, FA 129120 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 30, 2002) (“[B]ased on Respondent's failure to respond, it is presumed that Respondent lacks all rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.”); see also Desotec N.V. v. Jacobi Carbons AB, D2000-1398 (WIPO Dec. 21, 2000) (finding that failing to respond allows a presumption that the complainant’s allegations are true unless clearly contradicted by the evidence). Despite Respondent’s failure to respond, the Panel will examine all evidence in the record to determine if Respondent has rights or legitimate interests under Policy ¶ 4(c).
Complainant contends that Respondent has never been
authorized to use the EZGO mark and that Respondent is not commonly known by
the disputed domain name. The WHOIS information
does not indicate that Respondent is commonly known by the <ezgodealer.com> domain name. Thus, the Panel finds that Respondent is not
commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Tercent Inc. v. Lee Yi,
FA 139720 (Nat. Arb. Forum
The Panel finds Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name
to pass itself off as Complainant is not bona
fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i)
or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Am. Int’l Group, Inc. v.
Busby, FA 156251 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 30, 2003) (finding that
the respondent attempts to pass itself off as the complainant online, which is
blatant unauthorized use of the complainant’s mark and is evidence that the
respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name); see also Crow v. LOVEARTH.net, FA 203208 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 28, 2003) (“It is neither
a bona fide offerings [sic] of goods or services, nor an example of a
legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) & (iii) when
the holder of a domain name, confusingly similar to a registered mark, attempts
to profit by passing itself off as Complainant . . . .”).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
The Panel presumes that Respondent is commercially benefiting from the likely confusion between Complainant’s EZGO mark and the disputed domain name by passing itself off as Complainant. The disputed domain name is capable of creating confusion as to Complainant’s source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the website that resolves from the disputed domain name. The Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name constitutes evidence of registration and use in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See H-D Michigan, Inc. v. Petersons Auto., FA 135608 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 8, 2003) (finding that the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) through the respondent’s registration and use of the infringing domain name to intentionally attempt to attract Internet users to its fraudulent website by using the complainant’s famous marks and likeness); see also Entrepreneur Media, Inc. v. Smith, 279 F.3d 1135, 1148 (9th Cir. 2002) ("While an intent to confuse consumers is not required for a finding of trademark infringement, intent to deceive is strong evidence of a likelihood of confusion.").
Respondent’s attempt to pass itself off as Complainant also disrupts Complainant’s operations because Internet users attempting to conduct business with Complainant may mistakenly complete a transaction with Respondent. This diverts business away from Complainant, and is therefore evidence of Respondent’s bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See Artistic Pursuit LLC v. calcuttawebdevelopers.com, FA 894477 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 8, 2006) (finding that the respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name, which displayed a website virtually identical to the complainant’s website, constituted bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)); see also Lambros v. Brown, FA 198963 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 19, 2003) (finding that the respondent registered a domain name primarily to disrupt its competitor when it sold similar goods as those offered by the complainant and “even included Complainant's personal name on the website, leaving Internet users with the assumption that it was Complainant's business they were doing business with”).
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 <ezgodealer.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Hon. Ralph Yachnin, Panelist
Justice, Supreme Court, NY (Ret.)
Dated: January 24, 2008
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum