Plastic Suppliers, Inc. v. impact packaging
Claim Number: FA0909001284151
Complainant is Plastic
Suppliers, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Joseph A. Martin, of Archer & Greiner, P.C.,
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN
NAME
The domain name at issue is <earthfirstpackaging.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 September 11, 2009; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on September 14, 2009.
On September 14, 2009, Godaddy.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <earthfirstpackaging.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 September 24, 2009, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of October 14, 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@earthfirstpackaging.com by e-mail.
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On October 20, 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 <earthfirstpackaging.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s EARTHFIRST mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <earthfirstpackaging.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <earthfirstpackaging.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Plastic Suppliers, Inc., owns and uses the EARTHFIRST mark in connection with biodegradable packaging, wrapping, and labeling film product. Complainant began using the mark in 2004. Complainant holds a trademark registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) for its EARTHFIRST mark (Reg. No. 3,056,549 issued January 31, 2006).
Respondent, impact packaging, registered the <earthfirstpackaging.com> domain name on May 18, 2007. The disputed domain name resolves to a website featuring biodegradable products which compete with Complainant’s products.
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.
Complainant holds a trademark registration for the EARTHFIRST mark with the USPTO (Reg. No. 3,056,549 issued January 31, 2006). The Panel finds Complainant has established rights in the EARTHFIRST mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through its registration with the USPTO. See Expedia, Inc. v. Tan, FA 991075 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 29, 2007) (“As the [complainant’s] mark is registered with the USPTO, [the] complainant has met the requirements of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”); see also Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Bonds, FA 873143 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 16, 2007) (finding that a trademark registration adequately demonstrates a complainant’s rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)).
Respondent’s <earthfirstpackaging.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s EARTHFIRST mark. The disputed domain name contains Complainant’s entire mark and simply adds the descriptive term “packaging,” which describes Complainant’s biodegradable packaging products, and the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.” Previous panels have found the additions of a descriptive term and a gTLD are insufficient to adequately distinguish a disputed domain name from a complainant’s mark. See Whitney Nat’l Bank v. Easynet Ltd, FA 944330 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 30, 2007) (“The additions of generic words with an obvious relationship to Complainant’s business and a gTLD renders the disputed domain name confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”); see also Reese v. Morgan, FA 917029 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 5, 2007) (finding that the mere addition of the generic top-level domain “.com” is insufficient to differentiate a disputed domain name from a mark). Therefore, Respondent’s <earthfirstpackaging.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s EARTHFIRST mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
The Panel finds Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Complainant alleges that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <earthfirstpackaging.com> domain name. Past panels have found that when a complainant makes a prima facie case in support of its allegations, the burden shifts to the respondent to prove that it does have rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). The Panel finds Complainant has made a prima facie case. Due to the Respondent’s failure to respond to the Complaint, the Panel may assume that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <earthfirstpackaging.com> domain name. However, the Panel will examine the record to determine whether Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c). See Domtar, Inc. v. Theriault., FA 1089426 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 4, 2008) (“It is well established that, once a complainant has made out a prima facie case in support of its allegations, the burden shifts to respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.”); see also Desotec N.V. v. Jacobi Carbons AB, D2000-1398 (WIPO Dec. 21, 2000) (finding that failing to respond allows a presumption that the complainant’s allegations are true unless clearly contradicted by the evidence).
Complainant asserts that Respondent has never been authorized to use the EARTHFIRST mark. Complainant further provides the WHOIS information which lists Respondent as “impact packaging.” Respondent failed to provide evidence that is commonly known by the <earthfirstpackaging.com> domain name. Furthermore, the Panel fails to find evidence in the record suggesting that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. Therefore, the Panel finds Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See IndyMac Bank F.S.B. v. Eshback, FA 830934 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 7, 2006) (finding that the respondent failed to establish rights and legitimate interests in the <emitmortgage.com> domain name as the respondent was not authorized to register domain names featuring the complainant’s mark and failed to submit evidence of that it is commonly known by the disputed domain name); see also Educ. Broad. Corp. v. DomainWorks Inc., FA 882172 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 18, 2007) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <thirteen.com> domain name based on all evidence in the record, and the respondent did not counter this argument in its response).
Respondent uses the <earthfirstpackaging.com> domain name to resolve to a website featuring biodegradable products which compete with Complainant’s products. The Panel finds that this use is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Florists’ Transworld Delivery v. Malek, FA 676433 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 6, 2006) (holding that the respondent’s use of the <ftdflowers4less.com> domain name to sell flowers in competition with the complainant did not give rise to any legitimate interest in the domain name); see also Computerized Sec. Sys., Inc. v. Hu, FA 157321 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 23, 2003) (“Respondent’s appropriation of [Complainant’s] SAFLOK mark to market products that compete with Complainant’s goods does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods and services.”).
The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Complainant provides evidence of competing biodegradable product information and offerings at Respondent’s website resolving from the <earthfirstpackaging.com> domain name. Internet users, interested in Complainant’s biodegradable packaging products, may instead purchase products from Respondent because of Respondent’s use of the confusingly similar disputed domain name. The Panel finds Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name disrupts Complainant’s biodegradable products business, which constitutes bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See Lambros v. Brown, FA 198963 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 19, 2003) (finding that the respondent registered a domain name primarily to disrupt its competitor when it sold similar goods as those offered by the complainant); see also DatingDirect.com Ltd. v. Aston, FA 593977 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 28, 2005) (“Respondent is appropriating Complainant’s mark to divert Complainant’s customers to Respondent’s competing business. The Panel finds this diversion is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).”).
The Panel presumes Respondent profits from its use of the
disputed domain name. Internet users,
searching for Complainant and Complainant’s products, may become confused as to
Complainant’s association or affiliation with the disputed domain name and
resolving website. Respondent profits
from that confusion. The Panel finds
Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith registration
and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
The Panel finds Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been satisfied.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <earthfirstpackaging.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Honorable Paul A. Dorf (Ret.), Panelist
Dated: November 3, 2009
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum