Sears Brand, LLC v. Er Bai Wu c/o N/A
Claim Number: FA0910001292218
Complainant is Sears
Brand, LLC (“Complainant”), represented by David A. Wheeler, of Greenberg Traurig, LLP,
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN
NAME
The domain name at issue is <searoutlet.com>, registered with Directi Internet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. d/b/a Publicdomainregistry.com.
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.
Judge Ralph Yachnin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to
the National Arbitration Forum electronically on
On
On November 4, 2009, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of November 24, 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@searoutlet.com by e-mail.
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On
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 <searoutlet.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s SEARS mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <searoutlet.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <searoutlet.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Sears Brand, LLC, is a broadline retailer
providing a wide variety of home merchandise and related services under its
SEARS mark. Complainant is the owner of
the SEARS mark, registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office
(“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 1,529,006 issued October 26, 1995). Complainant has
more than 2,400 SEARS-branded and affiliated stores in the
Respondent, Er Bai Wu c/o N/A, registered the <searoutlet.com>
domain name on
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.
Domain Priority
The Complainant established its trademark by registration
with the USPTO on
The Panel finds that Complainant has established rights in
the SEARS mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through its trademark registration with the
USPTO (Reg. No. 1,529,006 issued October 26, 1995). Furthermore, the Panel finds that it is not
necessary for Complainant to have registered its SEARS mark in the country of
Respondent’s residence. See AOL LLC v. Interrante, FA
681239 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 23, 2006) (finding that where the complainant had
submitted evidence of its registration with the USPTO, “such evidence
establishes complainant’s rights in the mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”); 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 contends that
Respondent’s <searoutlet.com> domain name is confusingly similar to its SEARS mark. The <searoutlet.com>
domain name differs from Complainant’s mark in three
ways: (1) the letter “s” has been omitted from the SEARS mark; (2) the
descriptive term “outlet” has been added to the end of the mark; and (3) the
generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com” has been added. The Panel finds that the omission of one
letter from Complainant’s SEARS mark and the addition of a descriptive term are
inconsequential and do not serve to sufficiently distinguish Respondent’s
disputed domain name from Complainant’s mark.
See Universal City Studios, Inc. v.
HarperStephens, D2000-0716 (WIPO Sept. 5, 2000) (finding that deleting the
letter “s” from the complainant’s UNIVERSAL STUDIOS STORE mark did not change
the overall impression of the mark and thus made the disputed domain name
confusingly similar to it); see also 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). The Panel also finds that the addition of a gTLD does not
reduce the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the
mark because every domain name must contain a gTLD. See Sony
Kabushiki Kaisha v. Inja, Kil, D2000-1409 (WIPO Dec. 9, 2000) (finding that
“[n]either the addition of an ordinary descriptive
word . . . nor the suffix ‘.com’ detract from the overall
impression of the dominant part of the name in each case, namely the trademark
SONY” and thus Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) is satisfied). Because the likelihood
that Internet visitors will confuse the disputed domain name with Complainant’s
mark is not eliminated or diminished by these changes, the Panel finds that
Respondent’s disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s SEARS
mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii),
Complainant must first establish a prima facie case that Respondent has
no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and then 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). Since no 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 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
Complainant contends that the website resolving from the
disputed domain name displays click-through links to third-party
websites. Some of these links direct Internet users to Complainant’s
direct competitors and some resolve to Complainant’s own website. The
Panel presumes that Respondent receives click-through-fees through such
use. The Panel finds Respondent’s use of the disputed domain names is not
in connection with 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 Jerry Damson, Inc. v.
Furthermore, Complainant contends that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). The pertinent WHOIS information identifies the registrant of the <searoutlet.com> domain name as “Er Bai Wu c/o N/A.” This information bears no resemblance to the disputed domain name and there is no other evidence in the record to suggest otherwise. Thus, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Instron Corp. v. Kaner, FA 768859 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 21, 2006) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <shoredurometer.com> and <shoredurometers.com> domain names because the WHOIS information listed Andrew Kaner c/o Electromatic a/k/a Electromatic Equip't as the registrant of the disputed domain names and there was no other evidence in the record to suggest that the respondent was commonly known by the domain names in dispute); see also Reese v. Morgan, FA 917029 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 5, 2007) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <lilpunk.com> domain name as there was no evidence in the record showing that the respondent was commonly known by that domain name, including the WHOIS information as well as the complainant’s assertion that it did not authorize or license the respondent’s use of its mark in a domain name).
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Respondent
is using the <searoutlet.com> domain name which was registered on
November 27, 2005 to redirect Internet users to Respondent’s website featuring
links to third-party websites that either advertise Complainant or are in
direct competition with Complainant’s business. The Panel finds that such
use constitutes disruption and is evidence of bad faith registration and use
pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See Red Hat, Inc. v. Haecke, FA 726010 (Nat. Arb.
Forum July 24, 2006) (finding that the respondent engaged in bad faith
registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) by
using the disputed domain names to operate a commercial search engine with
links to the products of the complainant and to complainant’s competitors, as
well as by diverting Internet users to several other domain names); 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 that Respondent receives click-through fees for diverting Internet users to these third-party websites. Because Respondent’s domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s SEARS mark, Internet users accessing Respondent’s disputed domain name may become confused as to Complainant’s affiliation with the resulting website. Thus, Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See G.D. Searle & Co. v. Celebrex Drugstore, FA 123933 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 21, 2002) (finding that the respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) because the respondent was using the confusingly similar domain name to attract Internet users to its commercial website); see also Univ. of Houston Sys. v. Salvia Corp., FA 637920 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 21, 2006) (“Respondent is using the disputed domain name to operate a website which features links to competing and non-competing commercial websites from which Respondent presumably receives referral fees. Such use for Respondent’s own commercial gain is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).”).
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <searoutlet.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Hon. Ralph Yachnin, Panelist
Justice, Supreme Court, NY (Ret.)
Dated: December 17, 2009
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum