national arbitration forum

 

DECISION

 

Dell, Inc. v. Julius L Kluger

Claim Number: FA0910001290050

 

PARTIES

 

Complainant is Dell, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Steven M. Levy, Pennsylvania, USA.  Respondent is Julius L Kluger (“Respondent”), Florida, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

 

The domain name at issue is <dellnotebook.com>, registered with Domainbank.

 

PANEL

 

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.

 

Bruce E. Meyerson as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on October 16, 2009; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on October 21, 2009.

 

On October 19, 2009, Domainbank confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <dellnotebook.com> domain name is registered with Domainbank and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name.  Domainbank has verified that Respondent is bound by the Domainbank 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 29, 2009, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of November 18, 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@dellnotebook.com by e-mail.

 

Having received no timely response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

[1]

 

On November 24, 2009, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Bruce E. Meyerson 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.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

 

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

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

 

A.  Complainant makes the following assertions:

 

1.      Respondent’s <dellnotebook.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s DELL mark.

 

2.      Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <dellnotebook.com> domain name.

 

3.      Respondent registered and used the <dellnotebook.com> domain name in bad faith.

 

B.  Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant uses its DELL mark in connection with its business producing, selling, and distributing personal computers, laptops (a/k/a “notebooks”), and other computer accessories.  On October 9, 1990, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) issued Complainant a registration of the DELL mark (Reg. No. 1,616,571).  This is one of several trademark registrations held by Complainant in the DELL mark.

 

Respondent registered the <dellnotebook.com> domain name on June 25, 2001.  The disputed domain name does not resolve to an active website.

 

DISCUSSION

 

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 timely 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.

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

 

Complainant submitted proof of multiple registrations of the DELL mark with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 1,616,571 issued October 9, 1990).  The Panel finds that this evidence establishes Complainant’s rights in the DELL mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).  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).”); Paisley Park Enters. v. Lawson, FA 384834 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 1, 2005) (finding that the complainant had established rights in the PAISLEY PARK mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through registration of the mark with the USPTO).

 

Complainant contends that the <dellnotebook.com> domain name is confusingly similar to its DELL mark because the disputed domain name uses the entire mark with the generic word “notebook” and the generic top-level domain (gTLD) “.com” added to the end.  Further, since Complainant is in the computer-selling business, the word “notebook” has an obvious relationship to Complainant’s business wherein it uses the mark.  Thus, even though the word “dellnotebook” is not trademarked, the Panel finds the changes to the DELL mark insufficient to create distinctiveness from Complainant’s mark and therefore finds that the <dellnotebook.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant DELL mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).  See Isleworth Land Co. v. Lost in Space, SA, FA 117330 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 27, 2002) (“[I]t is a well established principle that generic top-level domains are irrelevant when conducting a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis.”); see also Space Imaging LLC v. Brownell, AF-0298 (eResolution Sept. 22, 2000) (finding confusing similarity where the respondent’s domain name combines the complainant’s mark with a generic term that has an obvious relationship to the complainant’s business).

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

 

Pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first establish a prima facie case that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <dellnotebook.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 disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).  Because no timely response was submitted in this case, the Panel may presume that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed 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 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 G.D. Searle v. Martin Mktg., FA 118277 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 1, 2002) (“Because Complainant’s Submission constitutes a prima facie case under the Policy, the burden effectively shifts to Respondent. Respondent’s failure to respond means that Respondent has not presented any circumstances that would promote its rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).”). 

 

The Panel finds no evidence in the record suggesting that Respondent is commonly known by the <dellnotebook.com> domain name.  Complainant asserts that Respondent has no license or agreement with Complainant authorizing Respondent to use the DELL mark, and the WHOIS information identifies Respondent as “Julius L Kluger.”  Thus, the Panel finds that 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 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); see also America W. Airlines, Inc. v. Paik, FA 206396 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 22, 2003) (“Respondent has registered the domain name under the name ‘Ilyoup Paik a/k/a David Sanders.’  Given the WHOIS domain name registration information, Respondent is not commonly known by the [<awvacations.com>] domain name.”).

 

Respondent has failed to make any active use of the disputed domain name.  The Panel finds that this failure to make any active use of the <dellnotebook.com> domain name is not 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 George Weston Bakeries Inc. v. McBroom, FA 933276 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 25, 2007) (finding that the respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in a domain name under either Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) where it failed to make any active use of the domain name); see also Hewlett-Packard Co. & Hewlett-Packard Dev. Co., L.P v. Shemesh, FA 434145 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 20, 2005) (finding that a respondent’s inactive use of a domain name that contains complainant’s mark is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)).

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

 

The Panel finds that it may consider the totality of the circumstances when conducting a Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) analysis, and that it is not limited to the enumerated factors in Policy ¶ 4(b).  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.”).

 

Since the <dellnotebook.com> domain name was registered on June 25, 2001, it has failed to resolve to a website.  The Panel finds that Respondent’s failure to make an active use of the disputed domain name is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).  See DCI S.A. v. Link Commercial Corp., D2000-1232 (WIPO Dec. 7, 2000) (concluding that the respondent’s [failure to make an active use] of the domain name satisfies the requirement of ¶ 4(a)(iii) of the Policy); see also Pirelli & C. S.p.A. v. Tabriz, FA 921798 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 12, 2007) (holding that non-use of a confusingly similar domain name constitutes bad faith registration and use).

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

DECISION

 

Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

 

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

 

 

 

 

Bruce E. Meyerson, Panelist

Dated:  December 8, 2009

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

 

Click Here to return to our Home Page

 

National Arbitration Forum