Kuhns
Bros. Log Homes, Inc. v.
Claim Number: FA1007001334523
Complainant is Kuhns
Bros. Log Homes, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Kevin M. Gold of Rhoads & Sinon LLP,
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN
NAME
The domain name at issue is <kuhnsbrosloghome.com>,
registered with GoDaddy.com, Inc.
The undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and that to the best of her knowledge she has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding. Hon. Carolyn Marks Johnson sits as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically July 12, 2010.
On July 12, 2010, GoDaddy.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <kuhnsbrosloghome.com> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, Inc. verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, Inc. registration agreement and thereby has agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy").
On July 15, 2010, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 4, 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@kuhnsbrosloghome.com by e-mail. Also on July 15, 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 August 12, 2010, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Hon. Carolyn Marks Johnson to sit as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the National Arbitration Forum discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy "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. The domain name that Respondent registered, <kuhnsbrosloghome.com>, is confusingly similar to Complainant’s KUHNS BROS. LOG HOMES INCORPORATED mark.
2. Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the <kuhnsbrosloghome.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <kuhnsbrosloghome.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Kuhns Bros. Log Homes, Inc., holds trademark registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) for its KUHNS BROS. LOG HOMES INCORPORATED mark (e.g., Reg. No. 1,641,274 issued April 16, 1991). Complainant uses its KUHNS BROS. LOG HOMES INCORPORATED mark to market and sell its log homes.
Respondent, Carmel Builders, LLC, registered the <kuhnsbrosloghome.com> domain name October 18, 2005. The disputed domain name resolves to the website of Respondent, a competing log home company founded by a former employee of Complainant, which contains hyperlinks to products that compete with Complainant’s products.
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."
Given 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 will draw such inferences as the Panel 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 Complainant to 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 holds multiple trademark registrations with the
USPTO for its KUHNS BROS. LOG HOMES INCORPORATED mark (e.g., Reg. No. 1,641,274 issued April 16, 1991). These
registrations are sufficient for Complainant to established rights in its KUHNS
BROS. LOG HOMES INCORPORATED mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Thermo Electron Corp. v. Xu, FA
713851 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 12, 2006) (finding that the complainants had
established rights in marks where the marks were registered with a trademark
authority); see also Reebok Int’l Ltd. v.
Respondent’s disputed domain name, <kuhnsbrosloghome.com>,
incorporates Complainant’s mark after removing the spaces separating the terms
of the mark, the period, the letter “s,” and the term “INCORPORATED.” The Panel finds that removal of spaces, a
period, a letter, and a term of Complainant’s mark does not distinguish the
disputed domain name from Complainant’s mark.
Consequently, the Panel finds that Respondent’s <kuhnsbrosloghome.com>
domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s KUHNS BROS. LOG HOMES
INCORPORATED mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
See Bond & Co. Jewelers, Inc.
v.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s protected mark; Complainant satisfied the elements of ICANN Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant alleges that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <kuhnsbrosloghome.com> domain name. Previous panels have found that when a complainant makes a prima facie case in support of its allegations, the burden shifts to the respondent to prove that it does have such rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). The Panel finds Complainant made a prima facie case. Given Respondent’s failure to respond to the Complaint, the Panel may assume that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <kuhnsbrosloghome.com> domain name. However, the Panel still examines the record to determine whether evidence suggests that Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c). See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 18, 2006) (holding that the complainant must first make a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) before the burden shifts to the respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in a domain name); 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.”).
Respondent did not present evidence to show such rights and/or legitimate interests and the Panel found no proof in the record that suggests that Respondent is commonly known by the <kuhnsbrosloghome.com> domain name. The WHOIS information lists the domain name registrant as “Carmel Builders, LLC.” The Panel finds that this WHOIS report does not indicate that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. Therefore, the Panel holds that Respondent is not commonly known by the <kuhnsbrosloghome.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Coppertown Drive-Thru Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 17, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <coppertown.com> domain name where there was no evidence in the record, including the WHOIS information, suggesting that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name); 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 <kuhnsbrosloghome.com> domain name resolves to a website of a competitor of Complainant that features hyperlinks to products that compete with Complainant’s log homes products. The Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the <kuhnsbrosloghome.com> domain name is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and it is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the <kuhnsbrosloghome.com> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See 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); see also Carey Int’l, Inc. v. Kogan, FA 486191 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 29, 2005) (holding that the respondent’s use of disputed domain names to market competing limousine services was not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), as the respondent was appropriating the complainant’s CAREY mark in order to profit from the mark).
The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; Complainant satisfied the elements of ICANN Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Respondent’s disputed <kuhnsbrosloghome.com> domain name resolves to a website of a competitor of Complainant that contains hyperlinks to products that compete with Complainant. Internet users interested in Complainant’s log homes may purchase competing products from Complainant’s competitor due to Respondent’s use of the confusingly similar disputed domain name. The Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the <kuhnsbrosloghome.com> domain name constitutes bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See Classic Metal Roofs, LLC v. Interlock Indus., Ltd., FA 724554 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 1, 2006) (finding that the respondent registered and used the <classicmetalroofing.com> domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) by redirecting Internet users to the respondent’s competing website); see also David Hall Rare Coins v. Tex. Int’l Prop. Assocs., FA 915206 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 9, 2007) (finding that the respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) because respondent used the disputed domain name to advertise goods and services of complainant’s competitors, thereby disrupting the complainant’s business).
Under such circumstances, the Panel is permitted to make an inference that Respondent commercially benefits in some way from its use of the <kuhnsbrosloghome.com> domain name. The Panel finds that Respondent is attempting to profit from Internet users’ confusion as to Complainant’s affiliation with the disputed domain name. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the <kuhnsbrosloghome.com> domain name supports findings of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See DatingDirect.com Ltd. v. Aston, FA 593977 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 28, 2005) (“the Panel finds the respondent is appropriating the complainant’s mark in a confusingly similar domain name for commercial gain, which is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶4(b)(iv).”); see also AOL LLC v. AIM Profiles, FA 964479 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 20, 2007) (finding that the respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) because the respondent was commercially gaining from the likelihood of confusion between the complainant’s AIM mark and the competing instant messaging products and services advertised on the respondent’s website which resolved from the disputed domain name).
The Panel finds that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith; Complainant satisfied the elements of ICANN 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 <kuhnsbrosloghome.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Hon. Carolyn Marks Johnson, Panelist
Dated: August 16, 2010.
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum