Keystone Automotive Operations, Inc. v. BWI Domain Manager
Claim Number: FA0804001177906
Complainant is Keystone Automotive Operations, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Paul
J. Kennedy, of Pepper Hamilton LLP,
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN
NAME
The domain name at issue is <keystoneautomotive.com>, registered with Rebel.com.
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.
Tyrus R. Atkinson, Jr., as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on April 14, 2008; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on April 15, 2008.
On April 15, 2008, Rebel.com confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <keystoneautomotive.com> domain name is registered with Rebel.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Rebel.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the Rebel.com registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy").
On April 16, 2008, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of
Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting
a deadline of 5/6/2008
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@keystoneautomotive.com by e-mail.
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On May 13, 2008, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Tyrus R. Atkinson, Jr., as Panelist.
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 <keystoneautomotive.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s KEYSTONE mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <keystoneautomotive.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <keystoneautomotive.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant is a distributor and marketer of specialty
automotive parts. Complainant registered
the KEYSTONE mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”)
on June 3, 1975 (Reg. No. 1,012,541). Complainant
has over 700 product lines distributed in the
Respondent registered the <keystoneautomotive.com> domain name on July 7, 2003. The disputed domain name resolves to a website which houses an online directory with pay-per-click links to websites offering goods and services from Complainant’s competitors.
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.
The Panel finds that Complainant has established rights in
the KEYSTONE mark for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)
through its trademark registration with the USPTO. See
Innomed Techs., Inc. v. DRP Servs.,
FA 221171 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 18, 2004) (“Registration of the NASAL-AIRE mark
with the USPTO establishes Complainant's rights in the mark.”); see also Smart Design LLC v. Hughes,
D2000-0993 (WIPO Oct. 18, 2000) (holding that ICANN Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) does not require the complainant to demonstrate
‘exclusive rights,’ but only that the complainant has a bona fide basis
for making the complaint in the first place).
Complainant contends that
Respondent’s <keystoneautomotive.com> domain name is confusingly similar to its KEYSTONE mark. The <keystoneautomotive.com> domain name differs from Complainant’s mark in two ways:
(1) the term “automotive” has been added to the end of the mark; and (2) the
generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com” has been added. Adding a term that describes the
complainant’s business does not sufficiently distinguish a domain name;
likewise, adding a gTLD does not in any way reduce the likelihood of
confusion. Therefore, the Panel finds
that these changes do not minimize or eliminate the resulting likelihood of
confusion, and so Respondent’s disputed domain name is not sufficiently
distinguished from Complainant’s mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 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 Nev. State Bank v. Modern Ltd. – Cayman Web Dev., FA
204063 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 6, 2003) (“It has been established that the
addition of a generic top-level domain is irrelevant when considering whether a
domain name is identical or confusingly similar under the Policy.”).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Complainant contends that Respondent lacks all rights and legitimate interests in the <keystoneautomotive.com> domain name. Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), after the complainant makes a prima facie case against the respondent, the respondent then has the burden of showing evidence that it does have rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Panel finds that Complainant has made a prima facie case under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). 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 Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000-0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (holding that once the complainant asserts that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the domain, the burden shifts to the respondent to provide “concrete evidence that it has rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name at issue”).
Complainant contends that Respondent is not commonly known
by the <keystoneautomotive.com> domain name nor have they ever
been the owner or licensee of the KEYSTONE mark. The WHOIS record for the disputed domain name
lists Respondent as “BWI Domain Manager.”
Based on this evidence, along with the fact that Respondent has failed
to show any evidence contrary to Complainant’s contentions, the Panel finds
that Respondent is not commonly known as <keystoneautomotive.com> pursuant
to 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 Brown v. Sarrault,
FA 99584 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 16, 2001) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <mobilitytrans.com>
domain name because it was doing business as “Mobility Connections”).
Respondent maintains a website at <keystoneautomotive.com> that contains an online directory of links to websites that offer goods and services from Complainant’s competitors. The Panel finds that this use of the domain name <keystoneautomotive.com> is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Black & Decker Corp. v. Clinical Evaluations, FA 112629 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 24, 2002) (holding that the respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to redirect Internet users to commercial websites, unrelated to the complainant and presumably with the purpose of earning a commission or pay-per-click referral fee did not evidence rights or legitimate interests in the domain name); see also Wells Fargo & Co. v. Lin Shun Shing, FA 205699 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 8, 2003) (finding that using a domain name to direct Internet traffic to a website featuring pop-up advertisements and links to various third-party websites is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) because the registrant presumably receives compensation for each misdirected Internet user); see also Nike, Inc. v. Dias, FA 135016 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 7, 2002) (finding no bona fide offering of goods or services where the respondent used the complainant’s mark without authorization to attract Internet users to its website, which offered both the complainant’s products and those of the complainant’s competitors).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Complainant contends that Respondent is using the disputed domain name to divert Internet customers from Complainant’s website to Respondent’s website that resolves from the disputed domain name, through the confusion caused by the similarity between the KEYSTONE mark and the <keystoneautomotive.com> domain name. The Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name disrupts Complainant’s business, and is evidence of registration and use in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See Travant Solutions, Inc. v. Cole, FA 203177 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 6, 2003) (“Respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith, pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii), because it is operating on behalf of a competitor of Complainant . . .”); see also EBAY, Inc. v. MEOdesigns, D2000-1368 (WIPO Dec. 15, 2000) (finding that the respondent registered and used the domain name <eebay.com> in bad faith where the respondent has used the domain name to promote competing auction sites).
Complainant also contends that Respondent is gaining commercially through this diversion, both through click-through fees and through the competing goods and services that Respondent is offering through the links to third-party websites. The Panel finds that this is an intentional use of the disputed domain name for commercial gain through a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark, and so, pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv), this use is also evidence of registration and use in bad faith. See TM Acquisition Corp. v. Warren, FA 204147 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 8, 2003) (“Although Complainant’s principal website is <century21.com>, many Internet users are likely to use search engines to find Complainant’s website, only to be mislead to Respondent’s website at the <century21realty.biz> domain name, which features links for competing real estate websites. Therefore, it is likely that Internet users seeking Complainant’s website, but who end up at Respondent’s website, will be confused as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of Respondent’s website.”); see also Associated Newspapers Ltd. v. Domain Manager, FA 201976 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 19, 2003) (“Respondent's prior use of the <mailonsunday.com> domain name is evidence of bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) because the domain name provided links to Complainant's competitors and Respondent presumably commercially benefited from the misleading domain name by receiving ‘click-through-fees.’”); see also Kmart v. Khan, FA 127708 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 22, 2002) (finding that if the respondent profits from its diversionary use of the complainant's mark when the domain name resolves to commercial websites and the respondent fails to contest the complaint, it may be concluded that the respondent is using the domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)).
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 <keystoneautomotive.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Tyrus R. Atkinson, Jr., Panelist
Dated: May 27, 2008
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum