Starbucks Corporation v. Host Master c/o Transure Enterprise Ltd
Claim Number: FA0910001290572
Complainant is Starbucks
Corporation (“Complainant”), represented by James F. Struthers, of Richard Law Group, Inc.,
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN
NAME
The domain name at issue is <starbucksnutrition.com>, registered with Above, 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.
The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.) as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on October 21, 2009; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on October 22, 2009.
On October 23, 2009, Above, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <starbucksnutrition.com> domain name is registered with Above, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Above, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Above, 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 October 27, 2009, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of November 16, 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@starbucksnutrition.com by e-mail.
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On November 20, 2009, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed the Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (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 <starbucksnutrition.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s STARBUCKS mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <starbucksnutrition.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <starbucksnutrition.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Starbucks Corporation, purchases and roasts whole bean coffees and sells them, along with coffees, espresso beverages, cold blended beverages, complementary food items, teas, and coffee-related accessories. Complainant has offered these coffee and coffee related products in cafés and restaurants under the STARBUCKS mark since 1971. Complainant holds multiple trademark registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 1,444,459 issued June 23, 1987) and the Australian trademark authority (Reg. No. 562,567 issued August 29, 1991) for its STARBUCKS mark.
Respondent, Host Master c/o Transure Enterprise Ltd., registered the <starbucksnutrition.com> domain name on February 12, 2008. The disputed domain name resolves to a website containing hyperlinks to Complainant’s competitors in the coffee bean, café, and restaurant business.
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 registered its STARBUCKS mark with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 1,444,459 issued June 23, 1987) and the Australian trademark authority (Reg. No. 562,567 issued August 29, 1991). Previous panels have held that trademark registration with a federal trademark authority is sufficient to establish rights in a mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Therefore, the Panel finds Complainant has established rights in the STARBUCKS 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 Microsoft Corp. v. Burkes, FA 652743 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 17, 2006) (“Complainant has established rights in the MICROSOFT mark through registration of the mark with the USPTO.”); see also Koninklijke KPN N.V. v. Telepathy Inc., D2001-0217 (WIPO May 7, 2001) (finding that the Policy does not require that the mark be registered in the country in which the respondent operates; therefore it is sufficient that the complainant can demonstrate a mark in some jurisdiction).
Complainant alleges Respondent’s <starbucksnutrition.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s STARBUCKS mark. The disputed domain name combines Complainant’s STARBUCKS mark with the generic term “nutrition” and the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.” The Panel finds the additions a generic term and a gTLD fail to adequately distinguish the disputed domain name from Complainant’s mark. See Google Inc. v. Xtraplus Corp., D2001-0125 (WIPO Apr. 16, 2001) (finding that the respondent’s domain names were confusingly similar to Complainant’s GOOGLE mark where the respondent merely added common terms such as “buy” or “gear” to the end); see also Warner Bros. Entm’t Inc. v. Rana, FA 304696 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 21, 2004) (finding that the addition of the generic term “collection” to Complainant’s HARRY POTTER mark failed to distinguish the domain name from the mark); see also Jerry Damson, Inc. v. Tex. Int’l Prop. Assocs., FA 916991 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 10, 2007) (“The mere addition of a generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com” does not serve to adequately distinguish the Domain Name from the mark.”). Therefore, the Panel finds Respondent’s <starbucksnutrition.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s STARBUCKS mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant has alleged that Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <starbucksnutrition.com> domain name. Once Complainant makes a prima facie case in support of its allegations, the burden shifts to Respondent to prove that it does have rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). The Panel finds Complainant has made a sufficient prima facie case. Due to Respondent’s failure to respond to the Complaint, the Panel may assume that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed 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 Intel Corp. v. Macare, FA 660685 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 26, 2006) (finding the “complainant must first make a prima facie case that [the] respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and then the burden shifts to [the] respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests.”); see also Vanguard Group, Inc. v. Collazo, FA 349074 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 1, 2004) (finding that because the respondent failed to submit a Response, “Complainant’s submission has gone unopposed and its arguments undisputed. In the absence of a Response, the Panel accepts as true all reasonable allegations . . . unless clearly contradicted by the evidence.”).
Complainant asserts that Respondent has never been authorized to use the STARBUCKS mark. Respondent is not commonly known by the <starbucksnutrition.com> domain name. The WHOIS information lists respondent as “Host Master c/o Transure Enterprise Ltd.” Therefore, the Panel finds Respondent has not established rights or legitimate interests in the <starbucksnutrition.com> domain name pursuant to 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 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 uses the <starbucksnutrition.com> domain name to resolve to a website featuring links to Complainant’s competitors in the coffee, coffee related products, cafés, and restaurants. Complainant alleges Respondent profits from the links through click-through fees. The Panel finds that this use is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain names under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See TM Acquisition Corp. v. Sign Guards, FA 132439 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 31, 2002) (finding that the respondent’s diversionary use of the complainant’s marks to send Internet users to a website which displayed a series of links, some of which linked to the complainant’s competitors, was not a bona fide offering of goods or services); see also ALPITOUR S.p.A. v. Albloushi, FA 888651 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 26, 2007) (rejecting the respondent’s contention of rights and legitimate interests in the <bravoclub.com> domain name because the respondent was merely using the domain name to operate a website containing links to various competing commercial websites, which the panel did not find to be 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 pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)).
The Panel finds Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Respondent uses the <starbucksnutrition.com> domain name to resolve to a website featuring links to Complainant’s competitors in the coffee and café industry. Customers searching for Complainant and Complainant’s coffee, coffee related products, and cafés, may instead purchase coffee and coffee related products from Complainant’s competitors. The Panel finds Respondent’s use of a confusingly similar disputed domain name for this purpose constitutes disruption of Complainant’s coffee business, which is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See Am. Online, Inc. v. Tapia, FA 328159 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 1, 2004) (“Respondent is referring Internet traffic that seeks out the <aol.tv> domain name to a competitor’s news site. The Panel strongly finds that appropriating Complainant’s mark to refer customers seeking Complainant to Complainant’s competitors is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).”); see also Tesco Pers. Fin. Ltd. v. Domain Mgmt. Servs., FA 877982 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 13, 2007) (concluding that the use of a confusingly similar domain name to attract Internet users to a directory website containing commercial links to the websites of a complainant’s competitors represents bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)).
The Panel infers Respondent receives click-through fees from the links to Complainant’s competitors in the coffee and café business. Respondent is using the confusingly similar disputed domain name to profit from Internet users’ confusion as to Complainant’s affiliation with the resolving website. The Panel finds Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith registration and use under 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 Allianz of Am. Corp. v. Bond, FA 680624 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 2, 2006) (finding bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the respondent was diverting Internet users searching for the complainant to its own website and likely profiting).
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 <starbucksnutrition.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.), Panelist
Dated: December 1, 2009
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum