Dorothy Lane Market v. Tony Chang
Claim Number: FA0906001271237
Complainant is Dorothy
Lane Market (“Complainant”),
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN
NAME
The domain name at issue is <killerbrownie.com>, registered with Godaddy.com, Inc.
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.
Honorable Paul A. Dorf (Ret.) as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on June 30, 2009; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on July 6, 2009.
On June 30, 2009, Godaddy.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <killerbrownie.com> domain name is registered with Godaddy.com, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Godaddy.com, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Godaddy.com, Inc. 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 July 14, 2009, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of August 3, 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@killerbrownie.com by e-mail.
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On August 4, 2009, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Honorable Paul A. Dorf (Ret.) 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 <killerbrownie.com> domain name is identical to Complainant’s KILLER BROWNIE mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <killerbrownie.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <killerbrownie.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Dorothy Lane Market, is the owner of the KILLER
BROWNIE mark, registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office
(“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 1,483,734 issued April 5, 1988). Complainant markets and sells a multi-layer
baked brownie called the KILLER BROWNIE, which is sold throughout
Respondent registered the <killerbrownie.com> domain name on September 15, 2006. The disputed domain name resolves to a website containing Respondent’s personal biography and resume.
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 KILLER BROWNIE mark based on its registration of the mark with the USPTO
pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant contends that Respondent’s <killerbrownie.com> domain name is identical to its KILLER BROWNIE mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant’s entire KILLER BROWNIE mark with the omission of the space between the words of the mark and the affixation of the generic top-level domain “.com.” The Panel finds that these alterations do not sufficiently distinguish Respondent’s disputed domain name from Complainant’s mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent’s <killerbrownie.com> domain name is identical to Complainant’s KILLER BROWNIE mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See George Weston Bakeries Inc. v. McBroom, FA 933276 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 25, 2007) (finding that eliminating the space between terms of a mark still rendered the <gwbakeries.mobi> domain name identical to the complainant’s GW BAKERIES mark); see also Gardline Surveys Ltd. v. Domain Fin. Ltd., FA 153545 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 27, 2003) (“The addition of a top-level domain is irrelevant when establishing whether or not a mark is identical or confusingly similar, because top-level domains are a required element of every domain name.”).
Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant contends that Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Once a prima facie case has been established by Complainant, the burden then shifts to Respondent to demonstrate its rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c). The Panel finds that Complainant has adequately established a prima facie case in these proceedings. Since Respondent has failed to respond to the allegations against it, the Panel may assume that Respondent lacks any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. See Intel Corp. v. Macare, FA 660685 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 26, 2006) (finding the “complainant must first make a prima facie case that [the] respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and then the burden shifts to [the] respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests.”); see also 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.”). The Panel will examine the record to determine whether Respondent has any relevant rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c).
Respondent’s <killerbrownie.com> domain name resolves to a website containing Respondent’s personal biography and resume. The Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the identical <killerbrownie.com> domain name, to divert Internet users to a website that is unrelated to Complainant’s KILLER BROWNIE mark, does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii), respectively. See Bank of Am. Fork v. Shen, FA 699645 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 11, 2006) (finding that the respondent’s use of a domain name to redirect Internet users to websites unrelated to a complainant’s mark is not a bona fide use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i)); see also Seiko Kabushiki Kaisha v. CS into Tech, FA 198795 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 6, 2003) (“Diverting customers, who are looking for products relating to the famous SEIKO mark, to a website unrelated to the mark is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor does it represent a noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”).
Furthermore, Complainant contends that Respondent is not
commonly known by the <killerbrownie.com> domain name under Policy
¶ 4(c)(ii). The
WHOIS information lists the registrant as “Tony Chang,” and there is no
information in the record to suggest that Respondent is otherwise commonly
known by the <killerbrownie.com> domain name. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is
not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Braun Corp. v.
Loney, FA 699652 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 7, 2006) (concluding that the
respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain names where the WHOIS
information, as well as all other information in the record, gave no indication
that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain names, and the
complainant had not authorized the respondent to register a domain name
containing its registered mark); see also
Coppertown Drive-Thru Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA
715089
(Nat.
Arb. Forum July 17, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not
commonly known by the <coppertown.com> domain name where there was no
evidence in the record, including the WHOIS information, suggesting that the
respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name).
Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
The Panel notes that it may look beyond the Policy ¶ 4(b) elements while considering a Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) analysis, and may find bad faith registration and use from the totality of the circumstances under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000-0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (“[T]he examples [of bad faith] in Paragraph 4(b) are intended to be illustrative, rather than exclusive.”); see also Digi Int’l Inc. v. DDI Sys., FA 124506 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 24, 2002) (determining that Policy ¶ 4(b) sets forth certain circumstances, without limitation, that shall be evidence of registration and use of a domain name in bad faith).
While no commercial use appears to have been created by Respondent in connection with the <killerbrownie.com> domain name, the Panel notes that the disputed domain name lends itself to the impression that Respondent sought to create confusion among Internet users attempting to seek Complainant’s KILLER BROWNIE goods. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent has registered and continues to use the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Cellular One Group v. Brien, D2000-0028 (WIPO Mar. 10, 2000) (finding bad faith when (1) the domain name contains the complainant’s mark in its entirety, (2) the mark is a coined word, well-known and in use prior to the respondent’s registration of the domain name, and (3) the respondent fails to allege any good faith basis for use of the domain name); see also Albrecht v. Natale, FA 95465 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 16, 2000) (finding registration in bad faith based where there is no reasonable possibility, and no evidence from which to infer that the domain name was selected at random since it entirely incorporated the complainant’s mark).
Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <killerbrownie.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Honorable Paul A. Dorf (Ret.), Panelist
Dated: August 18, 2009
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum