AutoZone Parts, Inc. v. David Kim
Claim Number: FA1001001304655
Complainant is AutoZone Parts, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Kitty
Bina, of Alston & Bird LLP,
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN
NAME
The domain name at issue is <discountautozone.com>, 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.
John J. Upchurch as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on January 25, 2010. With its Complaint, Complainant also chose to proceed entirely electronically under the new Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“Rules”) and the new Forum’s Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“Supplemental Rules”) by submitted an “opt-in” form available on the Forum’s website.
On January 26, 2010, GoDaddy.com confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <discountautozone.com> 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 January 28, 2010, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 17, 2010 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@discountautozone.com. Also on January 28, 2010, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the email addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts.
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On February 26, 2010, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed John J. Upchurch 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 (effective March 1, 2010, but opted-in to by Complainant for this case) "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent" through submission of a Written Notice, as defined in Rule 1. 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 <discountautozone.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s AUTOZONE mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <discountautozone.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <discountautozone.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, AutoZone Parts, Inc., is a leading retailer and distributor of automotive replacement parts and accessories. Complainant owns a number of trademark registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) for the AUTOZONE mark (e.g., Reg. No. 1,700,101 issued July 14, 1992).
Respondent registered the <discountautozone.com> domain name on July 1, 2003. Respondent’s disputed domain name resolves to a website displaying 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 owns a number of trademark registrations for the
AUTOZONE mark with the USPTO (e.g.,
Reg. No. 1,700,101 issued July 14, 1992).
The Panel finds that Complainant has established rights in the AUTOZONE
mark for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through its
trademark registration with the USPTO. See 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)); see also
Complainant argues that Respondent’s <discountautozone.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s AUTOZONE mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Respondent’s disputed domain name contains Complainant’s mark in its entirety, adds the generic term “discount,” and adds the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.” The Panel finds that the addition of a generic or descriptive terms such as “discount” to a registered mark in a disputed domain name creates a confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the registered mark. See Arthur Guinness Son & Co. (Dublin) Ltd. v. Healy/BOSTH, D2001-0026 (WIPO Mar. 23, 2001) (finding confusing similarity where the domain name in dispute contains the identical mark of the complainant combined with a generic word or term); see also 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). In addition, the Panel finds that the addition of a gTLD is irrelevant in distinguishing a disputed domain name from an established mark. See Trip Network Inc. v. Alviera, FA 914943 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 27, 2007) (concluding that the affixation of a gTLD to a domain name is irrelevant to a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis); 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, the Panel finds that Respondent’s disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s AUTOZONE mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Complainant asserts that Respondent lacks all rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. When 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 in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). The Panel finds that in this case, Complainant has established a prima facie case and Respondent has failed to submit a Response to these proceedings. See Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc. v. Samjo CellTech.Ltd, FA 406512 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 9, 2005) (“Complainant has made a prima facie showing that Respondent lacks rights to the Domain Name. The threshold for making such a showing is quite low, since it is difficult to produce evidence to support a negative statement. Here, Complainant has alleged that Respondent does not own any rights in the terms STARWOOD or STARWOODS, and that Respondent’s use of the Domain Name is not a fair one. These unsupported assertions, though sparse, are sufficient to make a prima facie showing in regard to the legitimacy element.”); see also 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.”).
Complainant contends that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). The relevant WHOIS information identifies the registrant of the disputed domain name as “David Kim” and there is no evidence in the record to suggest that Respondent is otherwise commonly known by the disputed domain name. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Braun Corp. v. Loney, FA 699652 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 7, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain names where the WHOIS information, as well as all other information in the record, gave no indication that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain names, and the complainant had not authorized the respondent to register a domain name containing its registered mark); see also St. Lawrence Univ. v. Nextnet Tech, FA 881234 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 21, 2007) (concluding a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name where there was no evidence in the record indicating that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name).
Respondent’s disputed
domain name resolves to a website featuring advertisements and links relating
to Complainant’s competitors in the auto parts industry. The Panel may
infer that Respondent profits through the generation of click-through fees from
the links to Complainant’s competitors. Therefore, the Panel finds that
Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name 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 of the disputed domain name under
Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See 24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc. v.
24HourNames.com-Quality Domains For
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Respondent’s disputed domain name resolves to a website featuring links to Complainant’s competitors in the auto parts industry. The confusingly similar disputed domain name likely attracts Internet users that are attempting to access Complainant’s website. Those Internet users are unknowingly redirected to the websites of Complainant’s competitors. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name constitutes a disruption of Complainant’s business, which is evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See 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)); see also St. Lawrence Univ. v. Nextnet Tech, FA 881234 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 21, 2007) (“This Panel concludes that by redirecting Internet users seeking information on Complainant’s educational institution to competing websites, Respondent has engaged in bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).”).
Complainant contends that Respondent is gaining commercially
through this diversion, through click-through fees that Respondent is
presumably receiving from its use of the disputed domain name. The Panel finds
that Respondent is intentionally using the disputed domain name for commercial gain
through a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark, and so, pursuant to
Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv), the Panel finds that this use for
commercial gain also constitutes evidence of registration and use in bad
faith. See T-Mobile USA, Inc. v. utahhealth, FA 697821 (Nat. Arb. Forum
June 7, 2006) (holding that the registration and use of a domain name
confusingly similar to a complainant’s mark to direct Internet traffic to a
commercial “links page” in order to profit from click-through fees or other
revenue sources constitutes bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)); see also
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 <discountautozone.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
John J. Upchurch, Panelist
Dated: March 12, 2010
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National Arbitration Forum