Seiko Epson Corporation and Epson America Inc. v. Kim Robin Edward c/o National Copier Service
Claim Number: FA0909001286703
Complainant is Seiko
Epson Corporation and Epson America
Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by James
B. Belshe, of Workman Nydegger,
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN
NAME
The domain name at issue is <epsontonerstore.info>, registered with GoDaddy.com.
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 September 29, 2009; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on September 30, 2009.
On September 29, 2009, GoDaddy.com confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <epsontonerstore.info> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com 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 October 1, 2009, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of October 21, 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@epsontonerstore.info by e-mail.
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On October 27, 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 <epsontonerstore.info> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s EPSON mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <epsontonerstore.info> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <epsontonerstore.info> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Seiko Epson Corporation, is a worldwide leader in the technology products industry. Complainant produces “printers, scanners, digital cameras, and video projectors.” Complainant owns a number of trademark registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) for the EPSON mark (e.g., Reg. 1,134,004 issued April 29, 1980).
Respondent registered the <epsontonerstore.info> domain name on July 16, 2009. Respondent’s disputed domain name resolves to a website offering third-party links to websites in competition with Complainant.
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 has a number of trademark registrations with the
USPTO for the EPSON mark (e.g., Reg. 1,134,004 issued April 29, 1980). The Panel finds that Complainant has
established rights in the EPSON mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)
through its trademark registration with the USPTO. See
Men’s Wearhouse, Inc. v. Wick, FA 117861 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 16,
2002) (“Under U.S. trademark law, registered marks hold a presumption that they
are inherently distinctive [or] have acquired secondary meaning.”); see also Innomed
Techs., Inc. v. DRP Servs., FA 221171
(Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 18, 2004) (“Registration of the NASAL-AIRE mark with the
USPTO establishes Complainant's rights in the mark.”).
Complainant argues that Respondent’s
<epsontonerstore.info> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s EPSON mark pursuant
to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Respondent’s
disputed domain name, which was registered on July 16, 2009, contains
Complainant’s mark in its entirety, adds the terms “toner” and “store,” and
adds the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.info.” The Panel finds that the addition of terms
that have an obvious relationship to Complainant’s business in the disputed
domain name create a confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and
the registered mark. See Kohler Co. v. Curley, FA 890812 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 5, 2007)
(finding confusing similarity where <kohlerbaths.com>,
the disputed domain name,
contained the complainant’s mark in its entirety adding “the descriptive term
‘baths,’ which is an obvious allusion to complainant’s business.”); see also Allianz of Am. Corp. v. Bond,
FA 680624 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 2, 2006) (finding that the addition of the
generic term “finance,” which described the complainant’s financial services
business, as well as a gTLD, did not sufficiently distinguish the respondent’s
disputed domain name from the complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)). In addition, the Panel finds that the addition
of a gTLD is irrelevant in distinguishing a disputed domain from a registered
mark. See Jerry Damson, Inc. v.
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Complainant alleges that Respondent lacks all rights and legitimate interests in the <epsontonerstore.info> domain name. If Complainant makes a prima facie case in support of its allegations, the burden shifts to Respondent to prove that rights and legitimate interests exist pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Based on the arguments made in the Complaint and Respondent’s failure to submit a Response, the Panel finds that Complainant has established a prima facie case in support of its contentions. Respondent has failed to submit a Response in these proceedings. See AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 25, 2006) (finding that if the complainant satisfies its prima facie burden, “then the burden shifts to the respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names.”); see also SEMCO Prods., LLC v. dmg world media (uk) ltd, FA 913881 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 9, 2007) (concluding that under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) and the factors listed in Policy ¶ 4(c), a complainant must first make a prima facie case that the respondent has not used or made demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, that the respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and that the respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name before the burden shifts to the respondent to show otherwise).
Complainant contends that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Respondent’s WHOIS information identifies Respondent as “Kim Robin Edward c/o National Copier Service.” The Panel finds that based on the WHOIS information and lack of affirmative evidence proving Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain, Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Therefore, pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <epsontonerstore.info> domain name. See G.D. Searle & Co. v. Cimock, FA 126829 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 13, 2003) (“Due to the fame of Complainant’s mark there must be strong evidence that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name in order to find that Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). However, there is no evidence on record, and Respondent has not come forward with any proof to establish that it is commonly known as CELEBREXRX or <celebrexrx.com>.”); see also Tercent Inc. v. Lee Yi, FA 139720 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 10, 2003) (stating “nothing in Respondent’s WHOIS information implies that Respondent is ‘commonly known by’ the disputed domain name” as one factor in determining that Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) does not apply).
Respondent is using the <epsontonerstore.info>
domain name to display links advertising third-party websites in competition
with Complainant’s offering of technology products. The Panel infers that Respondent is using the
disputed domain name to earn click-through fees, and thus finds that Respondent
has not made a bona fide offering of
goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair
use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Wells Fargo & Co. v. Lin Shun Shing, FA 205699 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 8, 2003) (finding that
using a domain name to direct Internet traffic to a website featuring pop-up
advertisements and links to various third-party websites is neither a bona
fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate
noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) because the registrant
presumably receives compensation for each misdirected Internet user); see also Coryn Group, Inc. v. Media Insight, FA 198959 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 5, 2003) (finding that
the respondent was not using the domain names for a bona fide offering
of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use because the
respondent used the names to divert Internet users to a website that offered
services that competed with those offered by the complainant under its marks).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
The Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the <epsontonerstore.info> domain name to disrupt the business of Complainant
by displaying links to competitors offering technology products is evidence of
bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See Travant Solutions, Inc. v. Cole, FA 203177 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 6, 2003) (“Respondent
registered and used the domain name in bad faith, pursuant to Policy ¶
4(b)(iii), because it is operating on behalf of a competitor of Complainant . .
.”); see
also Disney Enters., Inc. v. Noel, FA 198805 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov.
11, 2003) (“Respondent registered a domain name confusingly similar to
Complainant's mark to divert Internet users to a competitor's website. It is a
reasonable inference that Respondent's purpose of registration and use was to
either disrupt or create confusion for Complainant's business in bad faith
pursuant to Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) [and] (iv).”).
Respondent is using the <epsontonerstore.info> domain name to intentionally divert Internet
users to the associated website, which displays third-party links to competing
websites offering technology products.
In cases such as this, the Panel may assume that Respondent is
collecting click-through fees and attempting to profit by creating a likelihood
of confusion between Complainant’s mark and the disputed domain name. The Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the <epsontonerstore.info>
domain name is further evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to
Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Associated Newspapers Ltd.
v. Domain Manager, FA 201976 (Nat. Arb.
Forum Nov. 19, 2003) (“Respondent's prior use of the <mailonsunday.com>
domain name is evidence of bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) because the
domain name provided links to Complainant's competitors and Respondent
presumably commercially benefited from the misleading domain name by receiving ‘click-through-fees.’”);
see also Kmart v. Khan,
FA 127708 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 22, 2002) (finding that if the respondent
profits from its diversionary use of the complainant's mark when the domain
name resolves to commercial websites and the respondent fails to contest the
complaint, it may be concluded that the respondent is using the domain name in
bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)).
The Panel finds that 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 <epsontonerstore.info> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Tyrus R. Atkinson, Jr., Panelist
Dated: November 9, 2009
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum