national arbitration forum

 

DECISION

 

Seiko Epson Corporation and Epson America, Inc. v. Christopher Dzialo

Claim Number: FA1008001341785

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Seiko Epson Corporation and Epson America, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by James B. Belshe, of Workman Nydegger, Utah, USA.  Respondent is Christopher Dzialo (“Respondent”), Michigan, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <epsonleads.com>, registered with Wild West Domains, Inc.

 

PANEL

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.

 

Tyrus R. Atkinson, Jr., as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on August 18, 2010.

 

On August 18, 2010, Wild West Domains, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <epsonleads.com> domain name is registered with Wild West Domains, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name.  Wild West Domains, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Wild West Domains, 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 24, 2010, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 13, 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@epsonleads.com by e-mail.  Also on August 24, 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 27, 2010, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Tyrus R. Atkinson, Jr., 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.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A.  Complainant makes the following assertions:

 

1.      Respondent’s <epsonleads.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s EPSON mark.

 

2.      Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <epsonleads.com> domain name.

 

3.      Respondent registered and used the <epsonleads.com> domain name in bad faith.

 

B.  Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant, Seiko Epson Corporation and Epson America, Inc., manufactures, designs, produces, and distributes high technology products, including printers, scanners, digital cameras, and video projectors.  Complainant holds multiple trademark registrations for its EPSON mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 1,134,004 issued April 29, 1980). 

 

Respondent, Christopher Dzialo, registered the disputed domain name on May 9, 2010.  The disputed domain name resolves to Respondent’s own website which is unrelated to Complainant. 

 

DISCUSSION

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 Complainants

 

Previous panels have interpreted the Forum’s Supplemental Rule 1(e) to allow multiple parties to proceed as one party where they can show a sufficient link to each other.  For example, in Vancouver Organizing Committee for the 2010 Olympic and Paralymic Games and International Olympic Committee v. Hardeep Malik, FA 666119 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 12, 2006), the panel stated:

 

It has been accepted that it is permissible for two complainants to submit a single complaint if they can demonstrate a link between the two entities such as a relationship involving a license, a partnership or an affiliation that would establish the reason for the parties bringing the complaint as one entity.

 

In Tasty Baking, Co. & Tastykake Investments, Inc. v. Quality Hosting, FA 208854 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 28, 2003), the panel treated the two complainants as a single entity where both parties held rights in trademarks contained within the disputed domain names.  Likewise, in American Family Health Services Group, LLC v. Logan, FA 220049 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 6, 2004), the panel found a sufficient link between the complainants where there was a license between the parties regarding use of the TOUGHLOVE mark.  But see AmeriSource Corp. v. Park, FA 99134 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 5, 2001) (“This Panel finds it difficult to hold that a domain name that may belong to AmerisourceBergen Corporation (i.e., the subject Domain Names) should belong to AmeriSource Corporation because they are affiliated companies.”). 

 

In this case, Epson America Inc. is a subsidiary of Seiko Epson Corporation as well as a licensee of the EPSON trademark and service mark. The Panel finds this connection establishes a sufficient nexus or link between the Complainants.  Therefore, the Panel will treat them as a single entity in this proceeding.

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

 

Complainant asserts rights in its EPSON mark based on its registration of the mark with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 1,134,004 issued April 29, 1980).  The Panel finds that registration with a federal trademark authority such as the USPTO is sufficient evidence of Complainant’s rights in its EPSON mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).  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 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)).

 

Complainant alleges that Respondent’s <epsonleads.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s EPSON mark.  Respondent’s disputed domain name incorporates the entirety of Complainant’s mark and adds the generic term “leads” and the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.”  The Panel finds that the addition of a generic term and a gTLD do not sufficiently distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark.  See Sutton Group Fin. Servs. Ltd. v. Rodger, D2005-0126 (WIPO June 27, 2005) (finding that the domain name <suttonpromo.com> is confusingly similar to the SUTTON mark because the addition of descriptive or non-distinctive elements to the distinctive element in a domain name is immaterial to the analysis under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)); 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 that Respondent’s <epsonleads.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s EPSON mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) is satisfied.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

 

Complainant alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.  Once Complainant makes a prima facie case in support of its allegations, the burden shifts to Respondent to prove it has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).  Based on the arguments made in the Complaint, the Panel finds that Complainant has established a prima facie case in support of its contentions and Respondent has failed to submit a Response to these proceedings.  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 Bank of Am. Corp. v. McCall, FA 135012 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 31, 2002) (“Respondent's failure to respond not only results in its failure to meet its burden, but also will be viewed as evidence itself that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.”).  Nevertheless, the Panel will examine the record in light of the factors outlined in Policy ¶ 4(c) to determine whether Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the <epsonleads.com> domain name.

 

Complainant alleges that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name.  Complainant also argues that Respondent is neither a licensee of Complainant nor is it otherwise authorized to use the EPSON mark.  The WHOIS information indicates that the registrant of the disputed domain name is “Christopher Dzialo.”  The Panel finds that, without evidence in the record to the contrary, Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name pursuant to 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 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).

 

Complainant argues that Respondent’s disputed domain name resolves to Respondent’s own website advertising Respondent’s business which is unrelated to Complainant.  The Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the <epsonleads.com> domain name to advertise or promote Respondent’s own business, from which Respondent presumably financially benefits, is not a use in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).  See Bank of Am. Corp. v. Nw. Free Cmty. Access, FA 180704 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 30, 2003) (“Respondent’s demonstrated intent to divert Internet users seeking Complainant’s website to a website of Respondent and for Respondent’s benefit is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and it is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”); see also Summit Group, LLC v. LSO, Ltd., FA 758981 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 14, 2006) (finding that the respondent’s use of the complainant’s LIFESTYLE LOUNGE mark to redirect Internet users to respondent’s own website for commercial gain does not constitute either 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 that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) is satisfied.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

 

Complainant asserts that Respondent registered and is using the confusingly similar disputed domain name in an attempt to intentionally attract, for Respondent’s own commercial gain, Internet users to its website.  The Panel finds that Respondent’s registration and use of the <epsonleads.com> domain name to promote its own business unrelated to Complainant’s business is evidence of Respondent’s bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).  See 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); see also Drs. Foster & Smith, Inc. v. Lalli, FA 95284 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 21, 2000) (finding bad faith where the respondent directed Internet users seeking the complainant’s site to its own website for commercial gain).

 

The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) is satisfied.

 

DECISION

Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <epsonleads.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

Tyrus R. Atkinson, Jr., Panelist

Dated:  October 4, 2010

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

 

Click Here to return to our Home Page

 

National Arbitration Forum