CarMax Business Services, LLC v. Jim Allred
Claim Number: FA0803001156006
Complainant is CarMax Business Services, LLC (“Complainant”), represented by William
R. Poynter,
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN
NAME
The domain name at issue is <carmaxsales.com>, registered with Godaddy.com, Inc.
The undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his or her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to
the National Arbitration Forum electronically on
On
On March 10, 2008, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of March 31, 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@carmaxsales.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 <carmaxsales.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s CARMAX mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <carmaxsales.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <carmaxsales.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, CarMax Business Services, LLC, operates a
business which primarily offers vehicle sales and maintenance goods and services. Complainant first registered its CARMAX mark
with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) on
Respondent 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 has submitted evidence of the registration of
its CARMAX mark with the USPTO. The
Panel finds Complainant’s registration of its CARMAX mark with the USPTO
adequately establishes Complainant’s rights in the mark pursuant to Policy ¶
4(a)(i). See
Respondent’s <carmaxsales.com> domain name incorporates Complainant’s CARMAX mark with the addition of the descriptive term “sales,” and the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.” Since Complainant is in the business of vehicle “sales,” the addition of this descriptive term does not detract from the dominant feature of the domain name, which is Complainant’s CARMAX mark. The addition of a gTLD is not relevant in evaluating whether a disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark because a gTLD is required for every domain name. Therefore, the Panel finds Respondent’s <carmaxsales.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s CARMAX mark pursuant to Poilcy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Space Imaging LLC v. Brownell, AF-0298 (eResolution Sept. 22, 2000) (finding confusing similarity where the respondent’s domain name combines the complainant’s mark with a generic term that has an obvious relationship to the complainant’s business); see also Brown & Bigelow, Inc. v. Rodela, FA 96466 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 5, 2001) (finding that the <hoylecasino.net> domain name is confusingly similar to the complainant’s HOYLE mark, and that the addition of “casino,” a generic word describing the type of business in which the complainant is engaged, does not take the disputed domain name out of the realm of confusing similarity); see also Isleworth Land Co. v. Lost in Space, SA, FA 117330 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 27, 2002) ( “[I]t is a well established principle that generic top-level domains are irrelevant when conducting a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis.”).
The Panel finds Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Complainant asserts Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Complainant must establish a prima facie case to support these assertions, and the Panel finds Complainant has done so in these proceedings. Once Complainant has produced a sufficient prima facie case, the burden shifts to Respondent to establish it does have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent failed to submit a response to these proceedings, thus the Panel may infer Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. However, the Panel will examine the record to determine whether the Respondent has rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c). See Compagnie Generale des Matieres Nucleaires v. Greenpeace Int’l, D2001-0376 (WIPO May 14, 2001) (“Proving that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name requires the Complainant to prove a negative. For the purposes of this sub paragraph, however, it is sufficient for the Complainant to show a prima facie case and the burden of proof is then shifted on to the shoulders of Respondent. In those circumstances, the common approach is for respondents to seek to bring themselves within one of the examples of paragraph 4(c) or put forward some other reason why they can fairly be said to have a relevant right or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name in question.”); 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).
Respondent’s <carmaxsales.com>
domain name redirects the Internet user to the <cheapcarsutah.com> domain
name which offers vehicle sales and services that directly compete with
Complainant. The Panel finds
Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name constitutes diversion and is 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). See DLJ Long Term Inv. Corp. v.
BargainDomainNames.com, FA 104580 (Nat.
Arb. Forum Apr. 9, 2002) (“Respondent
is not using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services because Respondent is
using the domain name to divert Internet users to <visual.com>, where
services that compete with Complainant are advertised.”); see also Coryn Group, Inc. v. Media Insight, FA 198959 (Nat.
Arb. Forum Dec. 5, 2003) (finding that the respondent was not using the domain
names for a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate
noncommercial or fair use because the respondent used the names to divert
Internet users to a website that offered services that competed with those
offered by the complainant under its marks).
The WHOIS information suggests Respondent is known as “Jim Allred.” The record indicates Complainant has never authorized Respondent to use its CARMAX mark. Thus, the Panel finds Respondent is not commonly known by the <carmaxsales.com> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Tercent Inc. v. Lee Yi, FA 139720 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 10, 2003) (stating “nothing in Respondent’s WHOIS information implies that Respondent is ‘commonly known by’ the disputed domain name” as one factor in determining that Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) does not apply); see also Compagnie de Saint Gobain v. Com-Union Corp., D2000-0020 (WIPO Mar. 14, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interest where the respondent was not commonly known by the mark and never applied for a license or permission from the complainant to use the trademarked name).
The Panel finds Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Respondent’s disputed domain name redirects Internet users
to a commercial website at the <cheapcarsutah.com> domain name which
directly competes with Complainant’s business.
The Panel finds Respondent’s use constitutes disruption and is evidence
of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See
Disney Enters., Inc. v. Noel, FA 198805 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 11, 2003) (“Respondent
registered a domain name confusingly similar to Complainant's mark to divert
Internet users to a competitor's website. It is a reasonable inference that
Respondent's purpose of registration and use was to either disrupt or create
confusion for Complainant's business in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) [and] (iv).”); see
also Puckett, Individually v.
Miller, D2000-0297 (WIPO June 12, 2000) (finding that the respondent has
diverted business from the complainant to a competitor’s website in violation
of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)).
Respondent is using the website resolving from its
confusingly similar disputed domain name to redirect Internet users to a
competitor’s domain name. Respondent
presumably receives compensation for this use.
Additionally, Respondent’s use of Complainant’s CARMAX mark creates a
likelihood of confusion regarding the source of the content resolving from the
disputed domain name. The Panel finds
this is an attempt by Respondent to profit from the goodwill associated with
Complainant’s mark. Therefore, the Panel
finds Respondent’s actions constitute bad faith registration and use pursuant
to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
The Panel finds 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 <carmaxsales.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist
Dated: April 17, 2008
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum