LD Products, Inc. v. Web Services Pty c/o Aditya Roshni
Claim Number: FA0907001271502
Complainant is LD Products, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Matthew
M. Thomson, of Kronenberger Burgoyne, LLP,
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN
NAME
The domain name at issue is <123inkjetss.com>, registered with Directi Internet Solutions Pvt. Ltd.
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.
Tyrus R. Atkinson, Jr., as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to
the National Arbitration Forum electronically on
On
On
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On July 29, 2009, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Tyrus R. Atkinson, Jr., 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 <123inkjetss.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s 123INKJETS mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <123inkjetss.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <123inkjetss.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, LD Products,
Inc., has provided printer supplies and accessories via its website resolving
from its <123inkjets.com> domain name since 1999. On
Respondent registered the <123inkjetss.com>
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’s registration of the
123INKJETS mark with the USPTO establishes its rights in the mark pursuant to
Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
See AOL LLC v. AIM Profiles,
FA 964479 (Nat. Arb. Forum
The <123inkjetss.com>
domain name contains Complainant’s 123INKJETS mark in its entirety, adding only
the letter “s” and the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.” The Panel finds that these changes are
insufficient to overcome the confusing similarity that arises from using
Complainant’s entire mark in the disputed domain name. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent’s <123inkjetss.com>
domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s 123INKJETS mark pursuant to
Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
See Isleworth
Land Co. v. Lost in Space, SA, FA 117330 (Nat. Arb. Forum
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Pursuant to Policy
¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first establish a prima
facie case that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <123inkjetss.com>
domain name. If the Panel finds that Complainant’s
allegations establish such a prima facie case, the burden shifts to
Respondent to show that it does indeed have rights or legitimate interests in
the disputed domain name pursuant to the guidelines in Policy ¶ 4(c). The Panel finds that Complainant’s
allegations are sufficient to establish a prima
facie case that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <123inkjetss.com>
domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Since
no response was submitted in this case, the Panel may presume that Respondent
has no rights or legitimate interests in the <123inkjetss.com>
domain name. However, the Panel will still examine the
record in consideration of the factors listed in Policy ¶ 4(c). See Domtar, Inc. v. Theriault., FA 1089426 (Nat. Arb.
Forum
The Panel finds no evidence in the record suggesting that
Respondent is commonly known by the <123inkjetss.com> domain name. Complainant asserts that Respondent has no
license or agreement with Complainant authorizing Respondent to use the
123INKJETS mark, and the WHOIS information identifies Respondent as “Web Services Pty c/o Aditya Roshni.” Thus, 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
Respondent is using the <123inkjetss.com>
domain name to provide links to third-party websites,
some of which directly compete with Complainant’s. Respondent’s use of a domain name that is
confusingly similar to Complainant’s 123INKJETS mark to redirect Internet users interested in Complainant’s
services to websites that offer competition for those services is not a use in
connection with a bona fide offering
of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a
legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See TM Acquisition Corp. v. Sign Guards, FA 132439 (Nat. Arb. Forum
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Respondent is using the <123inkjetss.com> domain name to
resolve to a website containing links to third-party websites, some of which
directly compete with Complainant. The
Panel finds Respondent is using the disputed domain name to disrupt Complainant’s business
by diverting Internet users to Complainant’s competitors. This is evidence of bad faith registration
and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See
Puckett, Individually v. Miller, D2000-0297 (WIPO
The Panel infers
that Respondent receives click-through fees for diverting Internet users to
third-party websites. Because
Respondent’s domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s 123INKJETS
mark, Internet users accessing
Respondent’s <123inkjetss.com> domain name may become confused as to Complainant’s
affiliation or sponsorship with the resulting website. The Panel therefore finds that Respondent’s
use of the <123inkjetss.com> domain name constitutes bad faith registration and use
pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See AltaVista Co. v. Krotov, D2000-1091 (WIPO
The Panel finds that 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 <123inkjetss.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Tyrus R. Atkinson, Jr., Panelist
Dated: August 10, 2009
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum