Seiko Epson Corporation and Epson America Inc. v. Informed Citizen Media c/o Informed Citizen Media
Claim Number: FA0812001238821
Complainant is Seiko Epson Corporation and Epson America Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by R.
Parrish Freeman, of Workman Nydegger,
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN
NAME
The domain name at issue is <epsoncartridgenow.com>, registered with Directi Internet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. d/b/a Publicdomainregistry.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.
John J. Upchurch as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on December 15, 2008; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on December 16, 2008.
On December 18, 2008, Directi Internet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. d/b/a Publicdomainregistry.com confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <epsoncartridgenow.com> domain name is registered with Directi Internet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. d/b/a Publicdomainregistry.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Directi Internet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. d/b/a Publicdomainregistry.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the Directi Internet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. d/b/a Publicdomainregistry.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 December 22, 2008, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of January 12, 2009 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@epsoncartridgenow.com by e-mail.
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On January 16, 2009, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed John J. Upchurch 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 <epsoncartridgenow.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s EPSON mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <epsoncartridgenow.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <epsoncartridgenow.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Seiko Epson Corporation
and Epson America Inc., is a multinational manufacturer of, and world leader
in, the design, production, and distribution of high technology products,
including printers, scanners, digital cameras, and video projectors. Complainant holds several registrations of
its EPSON mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”)
(i.e., Reg. No. 1,134,004 issued April 29, 1980).
Respondent registered the <epsoncartridgenow.com> domain name on April 8, 2008. From the date of its registration until about June 25, 2008, the disputed domain name resolved to a website that displayed several hyperlinks to various third-party websites, some of which are in direct competition with Complainant. Sometime after June 25, 2008, Respondent changed the content of the resolving website to a noncommercial blog.
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 sufficiently established rights in the EPSON mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) because it holds a registration of the mark with the USPTO. See Vivendi Universal Games v. XBNetVentures Inc., FA 198803 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 11, 2003) (“Complainant's federal trademark registrations establish Complainant's rights in the BLIZZARD mark.”); see Janus Int’l Holding Co. v. Rademacher, D2002-0201 (WIPO Mar. 5, 2002) ("Panel decisions have held that registration of a mark is prima facie evidence of validity, which creates a rebuttable presumption that the mark is inherently distinctive.").
Respondent’s <epsoncartridgenow.com> domain name contains Complainant’s entire mark, merely adds the generic terms “cartridge,” and “now,” and the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.” The Panel finds that the additions of these generic terms and the gTLD do not sufficiently distinguish the disputed domain name from Complainant’s EPSON mark, especially since the word “cartridge” describes a product that Complainant sells: namely, ink cartridges for its printers. Therefore, the Panel concludes that the <epsoncartridgenow.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Oki Data Ams., Inc. v. ASD, Inc., D2001-0903 (WIPO Nov. 6, 2001) (“[T]he fact that a domain name wholly incorporates a Complainant’s registered mark is sufficient to establish identity [sic] or confusing similarity for purposes of the Policy despite the addition of other words to such marks”); see also Marriott Int’l, Inc. v. Café au lait, FA 93670, (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 13, 2000) (finding that the respondent’s domain name <marriott-hotel.com> is confusingly similar to the complainant’s MARRIOTT mark); see also 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).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)
has been satisfied.
At the outset, Complainant must make a prima facie showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <epsoncartridgenow.com> domain name. The burden then shifts to Respondent and Respondent must establish that it has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Panel finds that Complainant has sufficiently made its prima facie showing 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 G.D. Searle v. Martin Mktg., FA 118277 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 1, 2002) (“Because Complainant’s Submission constitutes a prima facie case under the Policy, the burden effectively shifts to Respondent. Respondent’s failure to respond means that Respondent has not presented any circumstances that would promote its rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).”).
Furthermore, because Respondent has failed to respond to Complainant’s allegations, the Panel may presume that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests. However, the Panel will still analyze the record under Policy ¶ 4(c). 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 Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009 (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000) (“[Rule 14(b)] expressly provide[s] that the Panel ‘shall draw such inferences’ from the Respondent’s failure to comply with the rules ‘as it considers appropriate.”).
Respondent’s <epsoncartridgenow.com> domain name resolves to a website that contains several hyperlinks to various third-party websites, some of which are in direct competition with Complainant’s business. The Panel finds that this is a diversion of Internet users to a competitive website and is therefore 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 Bank of Am. Corp. v. Nw. Free Cmty. Access, FA 180704 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 30, 2003) (“Respondent's demonstrated intent to divert Internet users seeking Complainant's website to a website of Respondent and for Respondent's benefit is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and it is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”); see also 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).
In addition, Respondent is listed in the WHOIS information as “Informed Citizen Media c/o Informed Citizen Media,” which does not indicate that it is commonly known by the <epsoncartridgenow.com> domain name. Respondent has not offered any evidence to indicate otherwise. The Panel thus 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 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 Am. W. Airlines, Inc. v. Paik, FA 206396 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 22, 2003) (“Respondent has registered the domain name under the name ‘Ilyoup Paik a/k/a David Sanders.’ Given the WHOIS domain name registration information, Respondent is not commonly known by the [<awvacations.com>] domain name.”).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Respondent is using the confusingly similar <epsoncartridgenow.com> domain name to directly compete with Complainant
through its use of hyperlinks. The Panel
finds that Respondent’s conduct diverts Internet users to a competing website,
disrupts Complainant’s business, and 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 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)).
Moreover,
the Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name with the
aforementioned hyperlinks creates a likelihood of confusion as to Complainant’s
affiliation with the <epsoncartridgenow.com>
domain name and its corresponding
website, and is evidence of bad faith
registration and use under 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 <epsoncartridgenow.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
John J. Upchurch, Panelist
Dated: January 30, 2009
National
Arbitration Forum