CafePress.com, Inc. v. LAKSH INTERNET SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED. c/o LAKSH INTERENT SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED.
Claim Number: FA0805001190323
Complainant is CafePress.com, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Daniel
Pontes,
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN
NAME
The domain name at issue is <cafapress.com>, registered with Lead Networks Domains Pvt. Ltd.
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.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to
the National Arbitration Forum electronically on
On
On June
16, 2008, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative
Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of
July 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@cafapress.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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant makes the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s <cafapress.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s CAFEPRESS.COM mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <cafapress.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <cafapress.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, CafePress.com, Inc., is a widely recognized
Internet company that allows individuals and small business to create, buy, and
sell unique, customized merchandise. Complainant has registered the CAFEPRESS.COM
mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No.
2,571,049 issued
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.
The Panel finds that Complainant has registered the CAFEPRESS.COM
mark with the USPTO and therefore has established rights to the mark pursuant
to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Expedia, Inc. v. Tan, FA 991075 (Nat. Arb.
Forum
Complainant contends that the <cafapress.com>
domain name is confusingly similar to the CAFEPRESS.COM mark. Respondent’s misspelling of the word “cafe”
is insufficient to create a distinction. The Panel finds that this misspelling is an
example of typosquatting. Therefore, the
Panel finds that the <cafapress.com> domain name is confusingly
similar to Complainant’s CAFEPRESS.COM mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Belkin Components v. Gallant, FA
97075 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 29, 2001) (finding the <belken.com> domain
name confusingly similar to the complainant's BELKIN mark because the name
merely replaced the letter “i” in the complainant's mark with the letter “e”); see also Neiman Marcus Group, Inc. v. Party Night, Inc., FA 114546 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 23, 2002) (finding that
the <neimanmacus.com> domain name was a
simple misspelling of the complainant’s NEIMAN MARCUS mark and was a classic example of typosquatting, which was
evidence that the domain name was confusingly similar to the mark).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Complainant has alleged Respondent does not possess rights
or legitimate interests in the domain name in dispute. Complainant must present a prima facie case to support these
allegations before the burden shifts to Respondent to prove it does have rights
or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Panel finds Complainant has presented a
sufficient prima facie case to
support its assertions and Respondent has failed to respond to these
proceedings. Therefore, the Panel may
conclude Respondent does not possess rights or legitimate interests in the
disputed domain name. See 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”); see also Broadcom Corp. v. Ibecom PLC,
FA 361190 (Nat. Arb. Forum
Complainant asserts that Respondent has never been authorized to use the CAFEPRESS.COM mark, and that Respondent is not and has never been commonly known by the disputed domain name. Further, the WHOIS information does not indicate that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. Thus, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the <cafapress.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 Gallup, Inc. v. Amish Country Store, FA 96209 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 23, 2001) (finding that the respondent does not have rights in a domain name when the respondent is not known by the mark).
Respondent is using the <cafapress.com> domain name to advertise links to third-party competitors. The Panel finds that such use is not a 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 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 Ameritrade Holdings Corp. v. Polanski, FA 102715 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 11, 2002) (finding that the respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to redirect Internet users to a financial services website, which competed with the complainant, was not a bona fide offering of goods or services).
Furthermore, the Panel finds that the <cafapress.com>
domain name is a typosquatted
version of Complainant’s mark. Under
Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), this typosquatting further indicates Respondent’s lack of
rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. See IndyMac Bank F.S.B. v. Ebeyer, FA 175292 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 19, 2003) (finding that
the respondent lacked rights and legitimate interests in the disputed
domain names because it “engaged in the practice of typosquatting
by taking advantage of Internet users who attempt to access Complainant's
<indymac.com> website but mistakenly misspell Complainant's mark by
typing the letter ‘x’ instead of the letter ‘c’”); see also LTD
Commodities LLC v. Party Night, Inc., FA
165155 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 14, 2003) (finding that the <ltdcommadities.com>,
<ltdcommmodities.com>, and <ltdcommodaties.com> domain
names were intentional misspellings of Complainant's LTD COMMODITIES mark
and this “‘typosquatting’ is evidence that Respondent lacks rights or
legitimate interests in the disputed domain names”).
The Panel finds that Complainant has met the initial burden of showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests, and therefore has made a prima facie case under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), which is not refuted by any evidence in the record. Therefore, the Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
The Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the <cafapress.com> domain name to commercially gain by advertising links to competing services constitutes bad faith registration and use under 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 S. Exposure v. S. Exposure, Inc., FA 94864 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 18, 2000) (finding the respondent acted in bad faith by attracting Internet users to a website that competes with the complainant’s business).
Complainant contends that Respondent is using the <cafapress.com>
domain name for commercial gain by advertising links to competing services, and
benefiting from the likely confusion between Complainant’s mark and the
disputed domain name. The Panel finds
that the similarity between the disputed domain name and the CAFEPRESS.COM mark
are likely to create confusion as to Complainant’s source, sponsorship,
affiliation, or endorsement of the website that resolves from the disputed
domain name under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See 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); see also Gardens Alive, Inc. v. D&S Linx,
FA 203126 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 20, 2003) (“Respondent registered and used the
<my-seasons.com> domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii)
and (iv) because Respondent is using a domain name that is confusingly similar
to the MYSEASONS mark for commercial benefit by diverting Internet users to the
<thumbgreen.com> website, which sells competing goods and services.”).
Finally, the typosquatted nature of the <cafapress.com> domain name also indicates that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Zone Labs, Inc. v. Zuccarini, FA 190613 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 15, 2003) (“Respondent’s registration and use of [the <zonelarm.com> domain name] that capitalizes on the typographical error of an Internet user is considered typosquatting. Typosquatting, itself is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”); see also Dermalogica, Inc. v. Domains to Develop, FA 175201 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 22, 2003) (finding that the <dermatalogica.com> domain name was a “simple misspelling” of the complainant's DERMALOGICA mark which indicated typosquatting and bad faith pursuant to Policy 4 ¶ (a)(iii)).
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 <cafapress.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Dated: July 24, 2008
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum