national arbitration forum

 

DECISION

 

Foster and Smith, Inc. v. Denesh Kumar

Claim Number: FA1009001345128

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Foster and Smith, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Kourtney A. Mulcahy, of Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, Illinois, USA.  Respondent is Denesh Kumar (“Respondent”), India.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <drsfostersmitth.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, Inc.

 

PANEL

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.

 

Honorable Karl V. Fink (Ret.) as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on September 3, 2010.

 

On September 8, 2010, GoDaddy.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <drsfostersmitth.com> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name.  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 September 14, 2010, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of October 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@drsfostersmitth.com by e-mail.  Also on September 14, 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 October 20, 2010, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Honorable Karl V. Fink (Ret.) 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 <drsfostersmitth.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s DRS. FOSTER AND SMITH mark.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

FINDINGS

Complainant, Foster and Smith, Inc., sells products related to pet care.  Complainant holds trademark registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) for the DRS. FOSTER AND SMITH mark (e.g., Reg. No. 2,683,524 issued February 4, 2003).  Complainant also uses the <drsfostersmith.com> domain name to resolve to its official website.

 

Respondent, Denesh Kumar, registered the <drsfostersmitth.com> domain name on December 6, 2004.  The disputed domain name resolves to a website that provides links to Complainant’s website as well as links to Complainant’s competitors.

 

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.

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

 

Complainant claims rights in the DRS. FOSTER AND SMITH mark through its numerous registrations of the mark with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 2,683,524 issued February 4, 2003).  The Panel finds these trademark registrations sufficiently prove Complainant’s rights in the DRS. FOSTER AND SMITH mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).  See Miller Brewing Co. v. Miller Family, FA 104177 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 15, 2002) (finding that the complainant had established rights to the MILLER TIME mark through its federal trademark registrations); see also 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).”).  In addition, the Panel finds Complainant need not hold trademark registrations with the trademark authority in the country in which Respondent resides.  See Williams-Sonoma, Inc. v. Fees, FA 937704 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 25, 2007) (finding that it is irrelevant whether the complainant has registered its trademark in the country of the respondent’s residence).

 

Complainant alleges Respondent’s <drsfostersmitth.com> domain name is confusingly similar to its DRS. FOSTER AND SMITH mark.  Respondent incorporates Complainant’s mark in the disputed domain name and merely omits the spaces between the words in the mark, the period after “Drs,” and the word “and.”  Respondent then adds an extra letter “t” to “smith,” the fourth word in Complainant’s mark.  Finally, Respondent attaches the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com” to Complainant’s mark in the disputed domain name.  The Panel finds these minor alterations do not sufficiently distinguish Respondent’s domain name from Complainant’s mark.  See Gurney’s Inn Resort & Spa Ltd. v. Whitney, FA 140656 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 19, 2003) (“Punctuation and spaces between words are not significant in determining the similarity of a domain name and a mark because punctuation and spaces are not reproducible in a domain name.”); see also Memoirs, Inc. v. Patel, FA 98244 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 28, 2001) (finding the domain name to be confusingly similar where a period was omitted from the I.MEMOIRS mark and the gTLD “.com” was added); see also Victoria’s Secret v. Zuccarini, FA 95762 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 18, 2000) (finding that, by misspelling words and adding letters to words, a respondent does not create a distinct mark but nevertheless renders the domain name confusingly similar to the complainant’s marks); see also Tesco Pers. Fin. Ltd. v. Domain Mgmt. Servs., FA 877982 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 13, 2007) (holding that “the Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ‘TESCO PERSONAL FINANCE’ mark in that it merely omits the descriptive term ‘personal.’”); 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 concludes  Respondent’s <drsfostersmitth.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s DRS. FOSTER AND SMITH mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

 

Complainant must first make a prima facie case showing Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <drsfostersmitth.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).  The burden then shifts to Respondent to prove it has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.  The Panel may view Respondent’s failure to submit a Response as evidence that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests.  See Intel Corp. v. Macare, FA 660685 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 26, 2006) (finding the “complainant must first make a prima facie case that [the] respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and then the burden shifts to [the] respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests.”); see also Am. Express Co. v. Fang Suhendro, FA 129120 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 30, 2002) (“[B]ased on Respondent's failure to respond, it is presumed that Respondent lacks all rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.”).  Despite Respondent’s failure to respond, the Panel will evaluate the record to determine whether Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c).

 

The WHOIS information lists “Denesh Kumar” as the registrant of the disputed domain name, which the Panel finds is not similar to the <drsfostersmitth.com> domain name.  Without evidence to the contrary, the Panel finds Respondent is not commonly known by the <drsfostersmitth.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).  See Tercent Inc. v. Lee Yi, FA 139720 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 10, 2003) (stating “nothing in Respondent’s WHOIS information implies that Respondent is ‘commonly known by’ the disputed domain name” as one factor in determining that Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) does not apply); see also M. Shanken Commc’ns v. WORLDTRAVELERSONLINE.COM, FA 740335 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 3, 2006) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <cigaraficionada.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) based on the WHOIS information and other evidence in the record).

 

Complainant alleges the <drsfostersmitth.com> domain name resolves to a website that features hyperlinks that connect to Complainant’s website as well as Complainant’s competitors.  A screen shot of the resolving website shows a site that displays links with titles like “Pet Products,” “Pet Meds,” “PETCO Online Pet Supplies,” “Drs. Foster & Smith,” and “JB Wholesale Pet Supply.”  The Panel presumes that Respondent profits from its use of the disputed domain name through the receipt of click-through fees.  Therefore, the Panel finds Respondent is not using the disputed domain name for 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 Disney Enters., Inc. v. Kamble, FA 918556 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 27, 2007) (holding that the operation of a pay-per-click website at a confusingly similar domain name was not 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 also Royal Bank of Scotland Grp plc et al. v. Demand Domains, FA 714952 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 2, 2006) (finding that the operation of a commercial web directory displaying various links to third-party websites was not a use in connection with 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), as the respondent presumably earned “click-through” fees for each consumer it redirected to other websites).

 

The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

 

The Panel finds the <drsfostersmitth.com> domain name resolves to a website that offers hyperlinks to Complainant’s competitors.  Therefore, the Panel finds Respondent’s domain name disrupts Complainant’s business, which constitutes bad faith 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).”).

 

The Panel also finds Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s website.  As previously discussed, Respondent’s domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s DRS. FOSTER AND SMITH mark.  Moreover, Respondent likely profits from its use of the domain name through the receipt of click-through fees.  Therefore, the Panel finds this behavior qualifies as registration and use in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).  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 Bank of Am. Fork v. Shen, FA 699645 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 11, 2006) (holding that the respondent’s previous use of the <bankofamericanfork.com> domain name to maintain a web directory was evidence of bad faith because the respondent presumably commercially benefited by receiving click-through fees for diverting Internet users to unrelated third-party websites).

 

The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

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 <drsfostersmitth.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

Honorable Karl V. Fink (Ret.), Panelist

Dated:  October 20, 2010

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

 

Click Here to return to our Home Page

 

National Arbitration Forum