3M Company v. Inflight Innovations
Claim Number: FA1012001364777
Complainant is 3M Company (“Complainant”), represented by Richard A. Kempf of Hellmuth & Johnson, PLLC, Minnesota, USA. Respondent is Inflight Innovations (“Respondent”), Canada.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <scotchgardshingle.com>, registered with Dotster, Inc.
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.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on December 22, 2010; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on December 22, 2010.
On December 22, 2010, Dotster, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <scotchgardshingle.com> domain name is registered with Dotster, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Dotster, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Dotster, Inc. registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On December 27, 2010, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of January 18, 2011 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@scotchgardshingle.com. Also on December 27, 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 January 2, 2011, 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 Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. 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 <scotchgardshingle.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s SCOTCHGARD mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <scotchgardshingle.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <scotchgardshingle.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, 3M Company, holds multiple trademark registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 630,698 issued July 17, 1956) and Canadian Intellectual Property Office (“CIPO”) (Reg. No. TMA113218 issued July 25, 1958) for its SCOTCHGARD mark. Complainant uses its SCOTCHGARD mark in connection with fabric and material protectors, as well as algaecide used for the manufacturing of roof shingles, tiles, and other roofing material.
Respondent, Inflight Innovations, registered the <scotchgardshingle.com> domain name on February 6, 2010. The disputed domain name resolves to a website containing hyperlinks to third-party websites that sell competing shingle 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."
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 holds multiple trademark registrations with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 630,698 issued July 17, 1956) and CIPO (Reg. No. TMA113218 issued July 25, 1958) for its SCOTCHGARD mark. The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) and has established rights in its SCOTCHGARD mark. 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 Trip Network Inc. v. Alviera, FA 914943 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 27, 2007) (finding that the complainant’s federal trademark registrations for the CHEAPTICKETS and CHEAPTICKETS.COM marks were adequate to establish its rights in the mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)).
Complainant contends Respondent’s <scotchgardshingle.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s SCOTCHGARD mark. The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant’s entire mark and simply adds the descriptive term “shingle” and the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.” The Panel concludes that such additions to Complainant’s mark fail to sufficiently distinguish the disputed domain name from the mark. See Kohler Co. v. Curley, FA 890812 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 5, 2007) (finding confusing similarity where <kohlerbaths.com>, the disputed domain name, contained the complainant’s mark in its entirety adding “the descriptive term ‘baths,’ which is an obvious allusion to complainant’s business.”); see also 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). Thus, the Panel finds that Respondent’s <scotchgardshingle.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s SCOTCHGARD mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
The Panel finds Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Complainant has alleged that Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <scotchgardshingle.com> domain name. The burden shifts to Respondent to prove it does have rights or legitimate interests when Complainant makes a prima facie case in support of its allegations under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). The Panel finds Complainant made a sufficient prima facie case. Respondent’s failure to respond to the Complaint allows the Panel to infer that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <scotchgardshingle.com> domain name. However, the Panel will examine the record to determine whether Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c). 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 Desotec N.V. v. Jacobi Carbons AB, D2000-1398 (WIPO Dec. 21, 2000) (finding that failing to respond allows a presumption that the complainant’s allegations are true unless clearly contradicted by the evidence).
Complainant claims that Respondent is not commonly known by the <scotchgardshingle.com> domain name. Respondent presents no evidence, and the Panel fails to find any evidence in the record, that Respondent is known by the disputed domain name. The WHOIS information identifies the domain name registrant as “Inflight Innovations,” which is not similar to the <scotchgardshingle.com> domain name. The Panel concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name pursuant to 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).
Complainant alleges that Respondent uses the <scotchgardshingle.com> domain name to resolve to a website featuring pay-per-click hyperlinks that resolve to Complainant’s competitors in the shingle business. The Panel finds that such a use is not 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). See Meyerson v. Speedy Web, FA 960409 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 25, 2007) (finding that where a respondent has failed to offer any goods or services on its website other than links to a variety of third-party websites, it was not using a domain name in connection with 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)); see also Skyhawke Techns., LLC v. Tidewinds Group, Inc., FA 949608 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 18, 2007) (“Respondent is using the <skycaddy.com> domain name to display a list of hyperlinks, some of which advertise Complainant and its competitors’ products. The Panel finds that this use of the disputed domain name does not constitute 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).”).
The Panel finds Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
While Complainant does not allege that Respondent’s use of the <scotchgardshingle.com> domain name disrupts Complainant’s business, the Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the domain name to host hyperlinks to Complainant’s competitors does disrupt Complainant’s business. Respondent diverts Internet users away from Complainant’s shingle products and to Complainant’s competitors’ products, which likely results in a loss of business for Complainant. Therefore, the Panel holds that Respondent’s use of the <scotchgardshingle.com> domain name disrupts Complainant’s business, which constitutes 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’s <scotchgardshingle.com> domain name resolves to a directory website containing third-party hyperlinks that resolve to websites offering competing shingle products. Complainant argues that Respondent is commercially benefitting from the aforementioned hyperlinks through the receipt of click-through fees. Complainant asserts that Internet users interested in Complainant may become confused as to Complainant’s affiliation with the disputed domain name due to its confusing similarity with Complainant’s mark. The Panel agrees with Complainant and finds evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Univ. of Houston Sys. v. Salvia Corp., FA 637920 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 21, 2006) (“Respondent is using the disputed domain name to operate a website which features links to competing and non-competing commercial websites from which Respondent presumably receives referral fees. Such use for Respondent’s own commercial gain is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).”); see also Zee TV USA, Inc. v. Siddiqi, FA 721969 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 18, 2006) (finding that the respondent engaged in bad faith registration and use by using a domain name that was confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark to offer links to third-party websites that offered services similar to those offered by the complainant).
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 <scotchgardshingle.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Tyrus R. Atkinson, Jr., Panelist
Dated: February 2, 2011
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page