Lucke Homes, Inc. v.
Claim Number: FA0903001255184
PARTIES
Complainant is Lucke Homes, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Kathryn E. Smith, of Wood, Herron &
Evans, LLP,
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <luckehomes.com>
and <robertluckehomes.com>,
registered with Compana, Llc.
PANEL
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.
Hector A. Manoff as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum
electronically on March 31, 2009; the National Arbitration Forum received a
hard copy of the Complaint on April 1, 2009.
On April 1, 2009, Compana, Llc confirmed by e-mail to the National
Arbitration Forum that the <luckehomes.com>
and <robertluckehomes.com>
domain names are registered with Compana, Llc and that the Respondent is the
current registrant of the names.
Compana, Llc has verified that Respondent is bound by the Compana, Llc
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 7, 2009, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of
Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline
of April 27, 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@luckehomes.com and
postmaster@robertluckehomes.com by e-mail.
A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on April
27, 2009.
On May 5, 2009, pursuant to Complainant’s request
to have the dispute decided by a single-member
Panel, the National Arbitration Forum
appointed Hector A. Manoff as Panelist.
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant requests that the domain names be transferred from
Respondent to Complainant.
PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
A. Complainant
1. Complainant asserts its rights in the LUCKE HOMES and ROBERT LUCKE
HOMES marks through their registrations with the United States Patent and
Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 3,467,713 issued July 15, 2008, and Reg.
No. 3,457,925 issued July 1, 2008, respectively).
2. Complainant also asserts rights in the LUCKE HOMES and ROBERT LUCKE HOMES marks through their use since at least as early as 1980 and 1984, respectively, though they remark that they had been using the “Lucke” surname in the home building business since at least as early as 1953.
3. Complainant asserts that the <luckehomes.com> and <robertluckehomes.com>
domain names are
identical to and fully incorporate the LUCKE HOMES and ROBERT LUCKE HOMES business
names and U.S. registered service marks,
respectively, despite the omission of spaces in the marks and addition of the
generic top-level domain “.com.”
4. Complainant alleges that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names.
5. Complainant alleges
that Respondent’s disputed domain names resolve to websites that display
third-party click-through advertising for Complainant’s direct competitors and
other third parties, which all generate significant revenue for
Respondent.
6. Complainant contends that Respondent has been the respondent in multiple other UDRP cases wherein the disputed domain names were transferred to the respective complainants in those cases, thus engaging in a pattern of bad faith registration and use.
7. Complainant also asserts that Respondent has disrupted Complainant’s business through the provision of competitive pay-per-click links on the resolving websites.
8. Complainant argues that Respondent’s use of an allegedly identical disputed domain names to commercially host advertisements for Complainant’s competitors has created a likelihood of confusion as to Complainant’s sponsorship and affiliation with the disputed domain names and corresponding websites.
9. Complainant also argues that
Respondent had actual or constructive notice of Complainant and its rights in
the marks at the time of the disputed domain names’ registrations.
B. Respondent
Respondent agrees to the relief requested by Complainant. It does not make any admission of the three
elements of Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy but offers a “unilateral consent to
transfer.”
FINDINGS
Respondent does not contest any
of Complainant’s allegations regarding the <luckehomes.com> and <robertluckehomes.com>
domain names. Rather, Respondent has consented to a
ruling in favor of Complainant and has authorized the immediate transfer of the
domain names at issue. In a
circumstance such as this, where Respondent
has not contested the transfer of the disputed domain names but instead agrees
to transfer the domain names in question to Complainant, the Panel may decide
to forego the traditional UDRP analysis and order an immediate transfer of the disputed domain names. See Antioch Co. v.
DECISION
Having ruled that Respondent’s Response
constitutes an explicit consent to transfer, the Panel concludes that relief
shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <luckehomes.com> and <robertluckehomes.com>
domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Hector A. Manoff, Panelist
Dated: May 19, 2009
Click Here to return
to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click
Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum