Provide Commerce, Inc. & Provide Gifts, Inc. v. Alichec Inc. c/o Brett Alichec a/k/a Oleg Techino a/k/a Oleg Techino a/k/a Balram Brahmin c/o Balram Brahmin a/k/a Belroots Pty Ltd c/o Luis de Carvalho a/k/a Chin-Hui Wu c/o Chin-Hui Wu a/k/a Crystal Image Pty Ltd c/o Antonio Marques a/k/a David Ghou c/o David Ghou a/k/a Denesh Kumar c/o Denesh Kumar a/k/a Denholm Borg c/o Denholm Borg a/k/a Elarson & Associates Pty Ltd c/o Eric Larson a/k/a Domain Administrator a/k/a Lidnick Webcorp Inc c/o Lidnick Webcorp a/k/a Liquid SEO Limited c/o Julian Greenberg a/k/a Loshedina Inc c/o Xi Na a/k/a Luchichang Pty Ltd c/o Luchichang Luchichang a/k/a Marcelos Vainez c/o Marcelos Vainez a/k/a Netmilo c/o Stoyan Bagdanov a/k/a Orel Hlasek LLC c/o Orel Hlasek a/k/a Vlad Obchikov c/o Vlad Obchikov a/k/a Volchar Pty Ltd c/o Domain Administrator a/k/a Web Pescados LLC c/o Augustine Rivera a/k/a Webatopia Marketing Limited c/o Michael Short a/k/a Alex Ovechkin a/k/a WuWeb Pty Ltd c/o Michael Chung Wu a/k/a ZincFusion Limited c/o Vivian Cox
Claim Number: FA1007001337671
Complainants are Provide
Commerce, Inc. and Provide Gifts,
Inc. represented by CitizenHawk,
Inc.,
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN
NAMES
The domain names at issue are <profllwers.com>, <0roflowers.com>, <redenvellpe.com>, <prorlowers.com>, <redenvelooe.com>, <proclowers.com>, <redenvelop4.com>, <protlowers.com>, <redenvelole.com>, <proflowerx.com>, <reddnvelope.com>, <pfoflowers.com>, <redenvel0pe.com>, <pr0flowers.com>, <redenveloupe.com>, <prlflowers.com>, <redenvelppe.com>, <proflosers.com>, <rsdenvelope.com>, <provlowers.com>, <redenvelopd.com>, <proflowere.com>, <redsnvelope.com>, <dedenvelope.com>, <profl0wers.com>, <redenwelope.com>, <redenfelope.com>, <profpowers.com>, <redenvelopa.com>, <proflowerc.com>, <redehvelope.com>, <redengelope.com>, <redenvepope.com>, <redenvdlope.com>, <redenveoope.com>, <fedenvelope.com>, <profl9wers.com>, <eedenvelope.com>, <proflouwers.com>, <proflowefs.com>, <r4denvelope.com>, <profoowers.com>, and <redenvelopi.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, 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.
Bruce E. Meyerson as Panelist.
Complainants submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on July 27, 2010.
On July 30, 2010, GoDaddy.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <profllwers.com>, <0roflowers.com>, <redenvellpe.com>, <prorlowers.com>, <redenvelooe.com>, <proclowers.com>, <redenvelop4.com>, <protlowers.com>, <redenvelole.com>, <proflowerx.com>, <reddnvelope.com>, <pfoflowers.com>, <redenvel0pe.com>, <pr0flowers.com>, <redenveloupe.com>, <prlflowers.com>, <redenvelppe.com>, <proflosers.com>, <rsdenvelope.com>, <provlowers.com>, <redenvelopd.com>, <proflowere.com>, <redsnvelope.com>, <dedenvelope.com>, <profl0wers.com>, <redenwelope.com>, <redenfelope.com>, <profpowers.com>, <redenvelopa.com>, <proflowerc.com>, <redehvelope.com>, <redengelope.com>, <redenvepope.com>, <redenvdlope.com>, <redenveoope.com>, <fedenvelope.com>, <profl9wers.com>, <eedenvelope.com>, <proflouwers.com>, <proflowefs.com>, <r4denvelope.com>, <profoowers.com>, and <redenvelopi.com> domain names are registered with GoDaddy.com, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. GoDaddy.com, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, 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 August 5, 2010, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 25, 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@profllwers.com, postmaster@0roflowers.com, postmaster@redenvellpe.com. postmaster@prorlowers.com, postmaster@redenvelooe.com, postmaster@proclowers.com, postmaster@redenvelop4.com, postmaster@protlowers.com, postmaster@redenvelole.com, postmaster@proflowerx.com, postmaster@reddnvelope.com, postmaster@pfoflowers.com, postmaster@redenvel0pe.com, postmaster@pr0flowers.com, postmaster@redenveloupe.com, postmaster@prlflowers.com, postmaster@redenvelppe.com, postmaster@proflosers.com, postmaster@rsdenvelope.com, postmaster@provlowers.com, postmaster@redenvelopd.com, postmaster@proflowere.com, postmaster@redsnvelope.com, postmaster@dedenvelope.com, postmaster@profl0wers.com, postmaster@redenwelope.com, postmaster@redenfelope.com, postmaster@profpowers.com, postmaster@redenvelopa.com, postmaster@proflowerc.com, postmaster@redehvelope.com, postmaster@redengelope.com, postmaster@redenvepope.com, postmaster@redenvdlope.com, postmaster@redenveoope.com, postmaster@fedenvelope.com, postmaster@profl9wers.com, postmaster@eedenvelope.com, postmaster@proflouwers.com, postmaster@proflowefs.com, postmaster@r4denvelope.com, postmaster@profoowers.com, and postmaster@redenvelopi.com by e-mail. Also on August 5, 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 September 10, 2010, pursuant to Complainants’ 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" 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.
Complainants request that the domain names be transferred from Respondent to Complainants.
A. Complainants make the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s <profllwers.com>, <0roflowers.com>, <prorlowers.com>, <proclowers.com>, <protlowers.com>, <proflowerx.com>, <pfoflowers.com>, <pr0flowers.com>, <prlflowers.com>, <proflosers.com>, <provlowers.com>, <proflowere.com>, <profl0wers.com>, <profpowers.com>, <proflowerc.com>, <profl9wers.com>, <proflouwers.com>, <proflowefs.com>, and <profoowers.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s PROFLOWERS mark.
Respondent’s <redenvellpe.com>, <redenvelooe.com>, <redenvelop4.com>, <redenvelole.com>, <reddnvelope.com>, <redenvel0pe.com>, <redenveloupe.com>, <redenvelppe.com>, <rsdenvelope.com>, <redenvelopd.com>, <redsnvelope.com>, <dedenvelope.com>, <redenwelope.com>, <redenfelope.com>, <redenvelopa.com>, <redehvelope.com>, <redengelope.com>, <redenvepope.com>, <redenvdlope.com>, <redenveoope.com>, <fedenvelope.com>, <eedenvelope.com>, <r4denvelope.com>, and <redenvelopi.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s REDENVELOPE mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <profllwers.com>, <0roflowers.com>, <redenvellpe.com>, <prorlowers.com>, <redenvelooe.com>, <proclowers.com>, <redenvelop4.com>, <protlowers.com>, <redenvelole.com>, <proflowerx.com>, <reddnvelope.com>, <pfoflowers.com>, <redenvel0pe.com>, <pr0flowers.com>, <redenveloupe.com>, <prlflowers.com>, <redenvelppe.com>, <proflosers.com>, <rsdenvelope.com>, <provlowers.com>, <redenvelopd.com>, <proflowere.com>, <redsnvelope.com>, <dedenvelope.com>, <profl0wers.com>, <redenwelope.com>, <redenfelope.com>, <profpowers.com>, <redenvelopa.com>, <proflowerc.com>, <redehvelope.com>, <redengelope.com>, <redenvepope.com>, <redenvdlope.com>, <redenveoope.com>, <fedenvelope.com>, <profl9wers.com>, <eedenvelope.com>, <proflouwers.com>, <proflowefs.com>, <r4denvelope.com>, <profoowers.com>, and <redenvelopi.com> domain names.
3. Respondent registered and used the <profllwers.com>, <0roflowers.com>, <redenvellpe.com>, <prorlowers.com>, <redenvelooe.com>, <proclowers.com>, <redenvelop4.com>, <protlowers.com>, <redenvelole.com>, <proflowerx.com>, <reddnvelope.com>, <pfoflowers.com>, <redenvel0pe.com>, <pr0flowers.com>, <redenveloupe.com>, <prlflowers.com>, <redenvelppe.com>, <proflosers.com>, <rsdenvelope.com>, <provlowers.com>, <redenvelopd.com>, <proflowere.com>, <redsnvelope.com>, <dedenvelope.com>, <profl0wers.com>, <redenwelope.com>, <redenfelope.com>, <profpowers.com>, <redenvelopa.com>, <proflowerc.com>, <redehvelope.com>, <redengelope.com>, <redenvepope.com>, <redenvdlope.com>, <redenveoope.com>, <fedenvelope.com>, <profl9wers.com>, <eedenvelope.com>, <proflouwers.com>, <proflowefs.com>, <r4denvelope.com>, <profoowers.com>, and <redenvelopi.com> domain names in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainants, Provide Commerce, Inc. and Provide Gifts, Inc., are online retailers of flowers and upscale gifts. Complainant Provide Gifts, Inc. is the wholly-owned subsidiary of Complainant Provide Commerce, Inc., and the two Complainants bring this Complaint together as one Complainant. For the remainder of the decision, the Complainants will be referred to jointly as “Complainant.” Complainant owns trademark registrations for the REDENVELOPE mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”):
Reg. No. 2,474,275 issued July 31, 2001;
Reg. No. 2,461,506 issued June 19, 2001;
Reg. No. 3,602,036 issued April 7, 2009.
Complainant also owns a trademark registration with the USPTO for the PROFLOWERS mark (Reg. No. 2,476,976 issued August 14, 2001).
Respondent registered the <profllwers.com>, <0roflowers.com>, <prorlowers.com>,
<proclowers.com>, <protlowers.com>, <proflowerx.com>,
<pfoflowers.com>, <pr0flowers.com>, <prlflowers.com>,
<proflosers.com>, <provlowers.com>, <proflowere.com>,
<profl0wers.com>, <profpowers.com>, <proflowerc.com>,
<profl9wers.com>, <proflouwers.com>, <proflowefs.com>,
and <profoowers.com> domain names on June 23, 2004. These disputed domain names do not currently
resolve to an active website.
Respondent registered the <redenvellpe.com>, <redenvelooe.com>, <redenvelop4.com>, <redenvelole.com>, <reddnvelope.com>, <redenvel0pe.com>, <redenveloupe.com>, <redenvelppe.com>, <rsdenvelope.com>, <redenvelopd.com>, <redsnvelope.com>, <dedenvelope.com>, <redenwelope.com>, <redenfelope.com>, <redenvelopa.com>, <redehvelope.com>, <redengelope.com>, <redenvepope.com>, <redenvdlope.com>, <redenveoope.com>, <fedenvelope.com>, <eedenvelope.com>, <r4denvelope.com>, and <redenvelopi.com> domain names on October 19, 2004. These disputed domain names redirect Internet users to Complainant’s own website at the <redenvelope.com> domain name through Complainant’s affiliate program.
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.
Preliminary Issue: Multiple Respondents
In the instant proceeding, Complainant has alleged that the entities which control the domain names at issue are effectively controlled by the same person and/or entity, which is operating under several aliases. Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”) provides that a “complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder.” The Panel finds that Complainant has presented sufficient evidence that the disputed domain names are controlled by the same entity and thus chooses to proceed with the instant proceedings.
Complainant owns trademark registrations for the REDENVELOPE mark with the USPTO:
Reg. No. 2,474,275 issued July 31, 2001;
Reg. No. 2,461,506 issued June 19, 2001;
Reg. No. 3,602,036 issued April 7, 2009.
Complainant also owns a trademark registration with the USPTO for the PROFLOWERS mark (Reg. No. 2,476,976 issued August 14, 2001).
The Panel finds that Complainant’s registrations of its REDENVELOPE and PROFLOWERS marks with the USPTO are sufficient to prove its rights in the marks for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), regardless of whether Respondent lives or operates where the marks are registered. See Disney Enters., Inc. v. Kudrna, FA 686103 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 2, 2006) (finding that the complainant’s registration of the DISNEY trademark with the USPTO prior to the respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name is sufficient to prove that the complainant has 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 alleges that Respondent’s <profllwers.com>, <0roflowers.com>,
<prorlowers.com>, <proclowers.com>, <protlowers.com>,
<proflowerx.com>, <pfoflowers.com>, <pr0flowers.com>,
<prlflowers.com>, <proflosers.com>, <provlowers.com>,
<proflowere.com>, <profl0wers.com>, <profpowers.com>,
<proflowerc.com>, <profl9wers.com>, <proflouwers.com>,
<proflowefs.com>, and <profoowers.com> domain names
are confusingly similar to Complainant’s PROFLOWERS mark. Each disputed domain name either exchanges
one letter for another or inserts an additional letter into
Complainant’s mark, and all of the disputed domain names append the generic
top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.” The
Panel finds that minor spelling changes that result in the difference of only
one letter fail to prevent confusing similarity according to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Google, Inc. v. DktBot.org, FA 286993 (Nat. Arb.
Forum Aug. 4, 2004) (“The mere addition
of a single letter to the complainant’s mark does not remove the respondent’s
domain names from the realm of confusing similarity in relation to the
complainant’s mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”); see also Belkin
Components v. Gallant, FA 97075 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 29, 2001) (finding the
<belken.com> domain name confusingly similar to the complainant's BELKIN
mark because the name merely replaced the letter “i” in the complainant's mark
with the letter “e”). The Panel also
finds that adding a gTLD does not affect the confusing similarity of the
disputed domain names to Complainant’s mark.
See Jerry
Damson, Inc. v.
Complainant also argues that Respondent’s <redenvellpe.com>, <redenvelooe.com>,
<redenvelop4.com>, <redenvelole.com>, <reddnvelope.com>,
<redenvel0pe.com>, <redenveloupe.com>, <redenvelppe.com>,
<rsdenvelope.com>, <redenvelopd.com>, <redsnvelope.com>,
<dedenvelope.com>, <redenwelope.com>, <redenfelope.com>,
<redenvelopa.com>, <redehvelope.com>, <redengelope.com>,
<redenvepope.com>, <redenvdlope.com>, <redenveoope.com>,
<fedenvelope.com>, <eedenvelope.com>, <r4denvelope.com>,
and <redenvelopi.com> domain names are confusingly similar to
Complainant’s RED ENVELOPE mark. Each
disputed domain name is a misspelled version of Complainant’s REDENVELOPE mark
that either exchanges one letter for another or adds an extra letter
into Complainant’s mark. All of the
disputed domain names also attach the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”)
“.com.” The Panel finds that these minor
spelling variations differing from Complainant’s mark by only one letter fail
to prevent confusing similarity according to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See
The Panel finds Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) requires that Complainant present a prima facie case against Respondent when alleging that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. The Panel finds that in this instance, the Complaint has presented a sufficient prima facie case against Respondent. Respondent, however, has failed to respond, indicating a lack of rights and legitimate interests according to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) and allowing the Panel to infer that Complainant’s allegations are true as stated. See Do the Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000-0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (“Failure of a respondent to come forward to [contest complainant’s allegations] is tantamount to admitting the truth of complainant’s assertions in this regard.”); see also Parfums Christian Dior v. QTR Corp., D2000-0023 (WIPO Mar. 9, 2000) (finding that by not submitting a response, the respondent has failed to invoke any circumstance which could demonstrate any rights or legitimate interests in the domain name). The Panel elects to consider the evidence presented, however, in light of the Policy ¶ 4(c) factors in order to make an independent determination on whether Respondent possesses any rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.
Complainant contends that Respondent is not sponsored by or legally affiliated with Complainant, has not been given permission by Complainant to use Complainant’s PROFLOWERS and REDENVELOPE marks, and is not commonly known by the disputed domain names. The WHOIS information for each disputed domain name fails to reflect any association between the disputed domain name and Respondent. The Panel accordingly finds that Complainant is not commonly known by the disputed domain names and does not possess rights and legitimate interests under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See 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); see also 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).
Complainant argues that the <profllwers.com>, <0roflowers.com>, <prorlowers.com>, <proclowers.com>, <protlowers.com>, <proflowerx.com>, <pfoflowers.com>, <pr0flowers.com>, <prlflowers.com>, <proflosers.com>, <provlowers.com>, <proflowere.com>, <profl0wers.com>, <profpowers.com>, <proflowerc.com>, <profl9wers.com>, <proflouwers.com>, <proflowefs.com>, and <profoowers.com> domain names do not currently resolve to an active website, which indicates that Respondent does not possess rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names according to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and ¶ 4(c)(iii). The Panel agrees with Complainant and finds that Respondent is not using the disputed domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use according to Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and 4(c)(iii). See Pharmacia & Upjohn AB v. Romero, D2000-1273 (WIPO Nov. 13, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where the respondent failed to submit a response to the complaint and had made no use of the domain name in question); see also Thermo Electron Corp. v. Xu, FA 713851 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 12, 2006) (finding that the respondent’s non-use of the disputed domain names demonstrates that the respondent is not using the disputed domain names for a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)).
Complainant asserts that Respondent’s <redenvellpe.com>, <redenvelooe.com>,
<redenvelop4.com>, <redenvelole.com>, <reddnvelope.com>,
<redenvel0pe.com>, <redenveloupe.com>, <redenvelppe.com>,
<rsdenvelope.com>, <redenvelopd.com>, <redsnvelope.com>,
<dedenvelope.com>, <redenwelope.com>, <redenfelope.com>,
<redenvelopa.com>, <redehvelope.com>, <redengelope.com>,
<redenvepope.com>, <redenvdlope.com>, <redenveoope.com>,
<fedenvelope.com>, <eedenvelope.com>, <r4denvelope.com>,
and <redenvelopi.com> domain names currently redirect Internet
users to Complainant’s own website at the <redenvelope.com> domain name
through Complainant’s affiliate program.
The Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain names to
redirect Internet users and misuse Complainant’s affiliate program does not
comport with a bona fide offering of
goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶
4(c)(i) or Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Deluxe Corp. v.
Complainant alleges that
all of Respondent’s disputed domain names are merely typographical errors of
Complainant’s mark meant to take advantage of common errors and the fame of
Complainant’s mark. As such, the Panel
finds that Respondent’s registration of these disputed domain names constitutes
typosquatting and shows a lack of rights and legitimate interests pursuant to
Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
See Microsoft Corp. v. Domain Registration
The Panel finds Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)
has been satisfied.
Complainant argues that Respondent’s <redenvellpe.com>, <redenvelooe.com>, <redenvelop4.com>,
<redenvelole.com>, <reddnvelope.com>, <redenvel0pe.com>,
<redenveloupe.com>, <redenvelppe.com>, <rsdenvelope.com>,
<redenvelopd.com>, <redsnvelope.com>, <dedenvelope.com>,
<redenwelope.com>, <redenfelope.com>, <redenvelopa.com>,
<redehvelope.com>, <redengelope.com>, <redenvepope.com>,
<redenvdlope.com>, <redenveoope.com>, <fedenvelope.com>,
<eedenvelope.com>, <r4denvelope.com>, and <redenvelopi.com>
domain names currently redirect Internet users to Complainant’s own website at
the <redenvelope.com> domain name through Complainant’s affiliate
program. Complainant contends that
Respondent profits from its registration of these confusingly similar disputed domain
names by capturing unknown Internet users who make typing mistakes and
subsequently redirecting them to Complainant’s own website in exchange for an
affiliate commission from Complainant.
The Panel finds that such misuse of Complainant’s affiliate program to
confuse Internet users and profit at Complainant’s expense reveals bad faith
registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Deluxe
Corp. v.
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.”).
Complainant alleges that the <profllwers.com>, <0roflowers.com>, <prorlowers.com>, <proclowers.com>, <protlowers.com>, <proflowerx.com>, <pfoflowers.com>, <pr0flowers.com>, <prlflowers.com>, <proflosers.com>, <provlowers.com>, <proflowere.com>, <profl0wers.com>, <profpowers.com>, <proflowerc.com>, <profl9wers.com>, <proflouwers.com>, <proflowefs.com>, and <profoowers.com> domain names do not currently resolve to an active website. The Panel finds that Respondent’s failure to associate these disputed domain names with active content demonstrates that Respondent does not have rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names according 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 Caravan Club v. Mrgsale, FA 95314 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 30, 2000) (finding that the respondent made no use of the domain name or website that connects with the domain name, and that [failure to make an active use] of a domain name permits an inference of registration and use in bad faith).
The Panel has previously concluded that Respondent is engaged in the practice of typosquatting through its registration of the confusingly similar disputed domain names. The Panel finds that Respondent’s typosquatting is evidence in and of itself of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Nextel Commc’ns Inc. v. Geer, FA 477183 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 15, 2005) (finding that the respondent’s registration and use of the <nextell.com> domain name was in bad faith because the domain name epitomized typosquatting in its purest form); see also Computerized Sec. Sys., Inc. v. Hu, FA 157321 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 23, 2003) (finding that the respondent engaged in typosquatting, which is evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)).
The Panel finds 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 <profllwers.com>, <0roflowers.com>, <redenvellpe.com>, <prorlowers.com>, <redenvelooe.com>, <proclowers.com>, <redenvelop4.com>, <protlowers.com>, <redenvelole.com>, <proflowerx.com>, <reddnvelope.com>, <pfoflowers.com>, <redenvel0pe.com>, <pr0flowers.com>, <redenveloupe.com>, <prlflowers.com>, <redenvelppe.com>, <proflosers.com>, <rsdenvelope.com>, <provlowers.com>, <redenvelopd.com>, <proflowere.com>, <redsnvelope.com>, <dedenvelope.com>, <profl0wers.com>, <redenwelope.com>, <redenfelope.com>, <profpowers.com>, <redenvelopa.com>, <proflowerc.com>, <redehvelope.com>, <redengelope.com>, <redenvepope.com>, <redenvdlope.com>, <redenveoope.com>, <fedenvelope.com>, <profl9wers.com>, <eedenvelope.com>, <proflouwers.com>, <proflowefs.com>, <r4denvelope.com>, <profoowers.com>, and <redenvelopi.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Bruce E. Meyerson, Panelist
Dated: September 14, 2010
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum