Ashley Furniture Industries, Inc. v. David
Wallick c/o Kegelmaster Intl.
Claim Number: FA0902001245874
PARTIES
Complainant is Ashley Furniture
Industries, Inc., (“Complainant”) represented by Terrence J. Madden, of Kostner,
Koslo & Brovold LLC,
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <ashleyfurnitures.us>,
registered with Moniker Online Services,
LLC.
PANEL
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.
James A Crary as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum
(the “Forum”) electronically on February 2, 2009; the Forum received a hard
copy of the Complaint on February 3, 2009.
On February 3, 2009, Moniker Online Services, LLC confirmed by e-mail
to the Forum that the <ashleyfurnitures.us>
domain name is registered with Moniker Online Services, LLC and that
Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Moniker Online Services, LLC has verified
that Respondent is bound by the Moniker Online Services, LLC registration
agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by
third parties in accordance with the U. S. Department of Commerce’s usTLD
Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On February 10, 2009, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of
Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline
of March 2, 2009 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint,
was transmitted to Respondent in compliance with Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for
usTLD Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”).
Having received no Response from Respondent, the Forum transmitted to
the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On March 9, 2009, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute
decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed James A Crary as
Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel
(the “Panel”) finds that the Forum has discharged its responsibility under
Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules. Therefore,
the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in
accordance with the Policy, the Rules, the Forum’s Supplemental Rules and any
rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the
benefit of any Response from Respondent.
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from
Respondent to Complainant.
PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
A. Complainant
1. Respondent’s <ashleyfurnitures.us> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s A ASHLEY FURNITURE mark.
2.
Respondent does not have any rights or
legitimate interests in the <ashleyfurnitures.us> domain name.
3.
Respondent registered and used the <ashleyfurnitures.us>
domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
FINDINGS
Complainant, Ashley Furniture Industries,
Inc., operates in the retail furniture and accessories business. Complainant has registered numerous
trademarks with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”),
including the A ASHLEY FURNITURE mark (Reg. No. 2,894,665 issued October 19,
2004).
Respondent registered the disputed <ashleyfurnitures.us>
domain name on October 13, 2006. The disputed domain name resolves to a
website that displays parked links and advertising for third-parties, including
Complainant’s direct competitors.
DISCUSSION
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 the Complainant's undisputed
representations pursuant to Paragraphs 5(f), 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 the 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 the Respondent is identical or
confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has
rights; and
(2) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of
the domain name; and
(3) the domain name has been registered or is being used in bad faith.
Given the similarity between the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution
Policy (“UDRP”) and the usTLD Policy, the Panel will draw upon UDRP precedent
as applicable in rendering its decision.
Identical
and/or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that Complainant’s registration of the A ASHLEY FURNITURE mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) adequately confers sufficient rights in the mark upon Complainant pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Expedia, Inc. v. Emmerson, FA 873346 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 9, 2007) (“Complainant’s trademark registrations with the USPTO adequately demonstrate its rights in the [EXPEDIA] mark pursuant to [UDRP] ¶ 4(a)(i).”); see also Intel Corp. v. Macare, FA 660685 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 26, 2006) (finding that the complainant had established rights in the PENTIUM, CENTRINO and INTEL INSIDE marks by registering the marks with the USPTO).
Respondent’s <ashleyfurnitures.us>
domain name contains Complainant’s A ASHLEY FURNITURE mark with the following
changes: (1) the “a” element has been removed; (2) the letter “s” has been
added to the end of the mark; and (3) the country-code top-level domain
(“ccTLD”) “.us” has been added. The
Panel finds that the addition of a ccTLD is irrelevant. See
Lifetouch, Inc. v. Fox Photographics, FA 414667 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 21,
2005) (finding the respondent’s <lifetouch.us> domain name to be
identical to the complainant’s LIFETOUCH mark because “[t]he addition of “.us”
to a mark fails to distinguish the domain name from the mark pursuant to the
[usTLD] Policy”). Moreover the removal
of a letter from the mark and the addition of another letter together fail to
create a meaningful distinction. See Granarolo S.p.A. v. Dinoia, FA
649854 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 17, 2006) (finding that the <granarolo.com>
domain name was confusingly similar to the complainant’s registered G GRANAROLO
mark); see also Google, Inc. v.
DktBot.org, FA 286993 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 4, 2004) (“The mere addition of a single letter to the
complainant’s mark does not remove the respondent’s domain names from the realm
of confusing similarity in relation to the complainant’s mark pursuant to
[UDRP] ¶ 4(a)(i).”). Therefore, the
Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark
under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has
been satisfied.
Rights
or Legitimate Interests
Complainant has asserted that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Once Complainant has set forth a prima facie case supporting its allegations, as it has in this case, the burden shifts to Respondent to prove that is does have rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). 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 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 [UDRP] 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.”).
There is no evidence in the record to conclude that Respondent owns any service marks or trademarks that reflect the disputed domain name. Therefore the Panel finds that Respondent does not have rights and legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i). See Meow Media Inc. v. Basil, FA 113280 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 20, 2002) (finding that there was no evidence that Respondent was the owner or beneficiary of a mark that is identical to the <persiankitty.com> domain name); see also Pepsico, Inc. v Becky, FA 117014 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 3, 2002) (holding that because Respondent did not own any trademarks or service marks reflecting the <pepsicola.us> domain name, it had no rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i)).
Respondent is using the disputed domain name to resolve to a
parked website that features links to third-party websites offering products
and services in direct competition with Complainant. Respondent presumably receives referral fees
from the advertisers listed on its website.
Thus, the Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name
does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods and services pursuant
to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to
Policy ¶ 4(c)(iv). 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 [UDRP] Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and it is not a legitimate
noncommercial or fair use under [UDRP] Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”); 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 UDRP ¶ 4(c)(i)
nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under UDRP ¶ 4(c)(iii) because the
registrant presumably receives compensation for each misdirected Internet
user).
There is no evidence within the
record to suggest that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. The WHOIS information lists Respondent as “David Wallick c/o Kegelmaster Intl.” Therefore, the Panel finds that
Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶
4(c)(iii). See 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); see
also 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
UDRP ¶ 4(c)(ii) does not apply).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has
been satisfied.
Registration
and Use in Bad Faith
Respondent is using the disputed domain name to resolve to a
website that features links to websites offering products and services in
direct competition with Complainant. The
Panel therefore finds that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name is
intended to disrupt the business of Complainant pursuant to Policy ¶
4(b)(iii). See
Respondent’s use of Complainant’s A ASHLEY FURNITURE mark
within the disputed domain name creates a likelihood of confusion as to the
source and affiliation of Respondent’s website and the disputed domain
name. Further, Respondent is presumed to
have sought out commercial benefit through the accrual and receipt of click-through
referral fees. Therefore, the Panel
finds that Respondent engaged in bad faith registration and use of the disputed
domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
See Asbury
Auto. Group, Inc. v.
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has
been satisfied.
DECISION
Having established all three elements required under the usTLD Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <ashleyfurnitures.us> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
James A Crary, Panelist
Dated: March 23, 2009
Click Here to
return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click
Here to return to our Home Page