National Arbitration Forum




Campmor, Inc. v. SnC Unlimited

Claim Number: FA0909001282935



Complainant is Campmor, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Kevin R. Haley, of Brann & Isaacson, Maine, USA.  Respondent is SnC Unlimited (“Respondent”), Pennsylvania, USA.



The domain name at issue is <>, registered with, Inc.



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.


Dr. Reinhard Schanda as Panelist.



Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on September 4, 2009; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on September 8, 2009.


On September 4, 2009,, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <> domain name is registered with, Inc. and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the name., Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the, 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 September 17, 2009, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of October 7, 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 by e-mail.


A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on October 8, 2009.


On October 14, 2009 pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Dr. Reinhard Schanda as Panelist.



Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.




A.     Complainant


Complainant is a New Jersey corporation headquartered in Mahwah, New Jersey. Complainant has long been recognized as a retailer of outdoor recreational equipment and apparel under its tradename through retail store sales, mail order and internet sales. Complainant holds two federal trademark registrations for the mark “CAMPMOR,” which were registered with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office as early as May 2, 1995.


Complainant has used the CAMPMOR mark continuously in commerce since 1978 in connection with the goods described above and in connection with the retail on-line and mail order sale of its goods. Complainant uses its trademark in connection with a wide variety of goods and services featuring outdoor recreational and camping equipment, including, but not limited to, tents, packs, sleeping gear, camp furniture, cookwear, water sporting goods and related products. Complainant does business around the world through distribution of its CAMPMOR catalog and through its website at Complainant relies on its trademark in marketing its goods and services to the consuming public, and is well-known as a provider of the goods and services enumerated above. Complainant’s registration of the CAMPMOR mark, and its continuous use of the mark in commerce since 1978 establish its rights in the mark.


Complainant recently discovered that Respondent registered <> on April 28, 2009.  Complainant has not granted Respondent any rights to use the name.  The domain name is being used in a deceptive and confusing manner so that web browsers who seek to access Complainant’s website are diverted to a website that offers for sale tents of various manufacturers in direct competition with CAMPMOR’s sales.


Respondent has registered the disputed domain name in bad faith in an attempt purposely to attract internet users seeking Complainant’s goods and services online.  It derives benefit by redirecting internet traffic by misrepresenting an association with the well-known        CAMPMOR name. 


The Respondent has employed a classic cybersquatting technique:  relying on common misspellings of a trademark in order to capture web users who inadvertently execute the wrong keystrokes or who add a common term to the domain name (commonly referred to as “typosquatting”).  In this case the domain names at issue are nearly identical to Complainant’s mark, incorporating the entire CAMPMOR mark, with only the minor variation, by the addition of the word “tents,” one of CAMPMOR’s primary and best-selling products.  As a result of the Respondent’s wrongful registration, persons seeking the legitimate CAMPMOR website who mistakenly add the word “tents” through a navigational search, or misspell the domain name, are instead routed to Respondent’s competing website.


It is axiomatic that a domain name that fully incorporates a trademark with only minor variations of the sort present in this case, is confusingly similar to a trademark in which a Complainant has rights.


Respondent’s use of <> fails to meet any of the criteria that would demonstrate a legitimate interest as laid out in Paragraph 4 of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy. 


Complainant has never authorized Respondent or its predecessors to use its trademarks or tradenames, nor to register the domain name at issue.  Nor has Respondent ever had an association with Complainant, or been commonly known by Complainant’s CAMPMOR trademark.


Moreover, the domain name <> has no relationship to Respondent or its services. While it has misappropriated the tradename Campmor for its business, Respondent owns no federal trademark in the mark.


Respondent is also using the domain name at issue to divert and confuse consumers by offering no information at all relating to the genuine CAMPMOR website.  This is further evidence showing a lack of legitimate interest in the domain name.


Accordingly, Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name <>. The requirements of Policy 4(a)(ii) have been fulfilled.


As discussed above, there is ample evidence in this case that Respondent’s registration and use of the <> domain name was and is in bad faith.  First, pursuant to ICANN Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv), use of the <> domain name which is identical to Complainant’s registered marks “with the intent to divert Internet users for commercial gain” to its website constitutes a clear example of bad faith.


Given these factors it must be concluded that Respondent’s acquisition and use of the domain name was, and is, in bad faith.


B. Respondent


In his Response Respondent stated the following:


“Respondent concedes to Complainant and the website “campmortents” was shutdown on September 8, 2009. The use of the name has been discontinued, however registration is retained.


Use of name has been discontinued.


Campmortents name was selected solely to market our products and the decision to use this name was not a properly informed decision. There was no malicious intent in our use.


Respondent agrees to “transfer ‘campmortents’ to Complainant if so ordered.”




Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (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.”


Preliminary Issue: Deficient Response


Although Respondent has provided a Response that was deficient because a hard copy of the Response was not received before the Response deadline, the Panel decides to consider Respondent’s submission. See Strum v. Nordic Net Exch. AB, FA 102843 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 21, 2002) (“[R]uling a Response inadmissible because of formal deficiencies would be an extreme remedy not consistent with the basic principles of due process. . . ."); see also J.W. Spear & Sons PLC v. Fun League Mgmt., FA 180628 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 17, 2003) (finding that where the respondent submitted a timely response electronically, but failed to submit a hard copy of the response on time, “[t]he Panel is of the view that given the technical nature of the breach and the need to resolve the real dispute between the parties that this submission should be allowed and given due weight”). Likewise the Panel has chosen to consider Respondent’s Submission.


Preliminary Issue: Consent to Transfer


Respondent consents to transfer the <> domain name to Complainant.  However, after the initiation of this proceeding, the Registrar,, placed a hold on Respondent’s account and therefore Respondent cannot transfer the disputed domain name while this proceeding is still pending.  As a result, the Panel finds that in a circumstance such as this, where Respondent has not contested the transfer of the disputed domain name but instead agrees to transfer the domain name in question to Complainant, the Panel may decide to forego the traditional UDRP analysis and order an immediate transfer of the <> domain name.  See Boehringer Ingelheim Int’l GmbH v. Modern Ltd. – Cayman Web Dev., FA 133625 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 9, 2003) (transferring the domain name registration where the respondent stipulated to the transfer); see also Malev Hungarian Airlines, Ltd. v. Vertical Axis Inc., FA 212653 (Nat Arb. Forum Jan. 13, 2004) (“In this case, the parties have both asked for the domain name to be transferred to the Complainant . . . Since the requests of the parties in this case are identical, the Panel has no scope to do anything other than to recognize the common request, and it has no mandate to make findings of fact or of compliance (or not) with the Policy.”); see also Disney Enters., Inc. v. Morales, FA 475191 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 24, 2005) (“[U]nder such circumstances, where Respondent has agreed to comply with Complainant’s request, the Panel felt it to be expedient and judicial to forego the traditional UDRP analysis and order the transfer of the domain names.”). Thus, the Panel decides to honor Respondent’s request and to issue a decision ordering the immediate transfer of the <> domain name to Complainant.




Having established and determined that the requests of the parties in this case are identical, in that the Respondent does not contest Complainant’s remedy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.


Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.



Dr. Reinhard Schanda, Panelist
Dated: October 28, 2009







Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.


Click Here to return to our Home Page


National Arbitration Forum