John Rich & Sons Investment Holding Company v. Mary Jones
Claim Number: FA1101001366614
Complainant is John Rich & Sons Investment Holding Company (“Complainant”), represented by Jeffrey S. Habib of Hooker & Habib, P.C., Pennsylvania, USA. Respondent is Mary Jones (“Respondent”), China.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <woolrichoutlets.com>, registered with HiChina Zhicheng Technology Ltd.
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.
John J. Upchurch as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on January 10, 2011; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on January 28, 2011. The Complainant was received in both the Chinese and English languages.
On January 26, 2011, HiChina Zhicheng Technology Ltd. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <woolrichoutlets.com> domain name is registered with HiChina Zhicheng Technology Ltd. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. HiChina Zhicheng Technology Ltd. has verified that Respondent is bound by the HiChina Zhicheng Technology Ltd. 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 January 28, 2011, the Forum served the Chinese language Complaint and all Annexes, including a Chinese language Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 17, 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@woolrichoutlets.com. Also on January 28, 2011, the Chinese language 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 February 23, 2011, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed John J. Upchurch 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.
Pursuant to Rule 11(a) the Panel determines that the language requirement has been satisfied through the Chinese language Complaint and Commencement Notification and, absent a Response, determines that the remainder of the proceedings may be conducted in English.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant makes the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s <woolrichoutlets.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s WOOLRICH mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <woolrichoutlets.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <woolrichoutlets.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, John Rich & Sons Investment Holding Company, is the owner and licensee of the WOOLRICH mark which it uses to market and sell clothing, footwear, headgear, and other goods and services. Complainant owns several trademark registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") for its WOOLRICH mark (e.g., Reg. No. 1,256,425 issued November 1, 1983). Complainant also owns trademark registrations with the Chinese State Intellectual Property Office (“SIPO”) for its WOOLRICH mark (e.g., Reg. No. 1246831 issued February 14, 1999).
Respondent, Mary Jones, registered the <woolrichoutlets.com> domain name. Respondent’s disputed domain name resolves to a website that markets and sells counterfeit or unauthorized copies of 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."
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.
The Panel finds that Complainant has established its rights in the WOOLRICH mark through its trademark registrations with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 1,256,425 issued November 1, 1983) and SIPO (e.g., Reg. No. 1246831 issued February 14, 1999). See Intel Corp. v. Macare, FA 660685 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 26, 2006) (finding that the complainant had established rights in the PENTIUM, CENTRINO and INTEL INSIDE marks by registering the marks with the USPTO); 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 argues that Respondent’s <woolrichoutlets.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s WOOLRICH mark. Complainant notes that the disputed domain name contains its entire mark with the addition of the generic term “outlets” and the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.” The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s WOOLRICH mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Arthur Guinness Son & Co. (Dublin) Ltd. v. Healy/BOSTH, D2001-0026 (WIPO Mar. 23, 2001) (finding confusing similarity where the domain name in dispute contains the identical mark of the complainant combined with a generic word or term); 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).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Complainant alleges that Respondent does not any rights and legitimate interests in the <woolrichoutlets.com> domain name. Complainant is required to make a prima facie case in support of these allegations. Once Complainant has produced a prima facie case the burden of proof shifts to Respondent to show that it possesses rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. 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 Domtar, Inc. v. Theriault., FA 1089426 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 4, 2008) (“It is well established that, once a complainant has made out a prima facie case in support of its allegations, the burden shifts to respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.”). The Panel finds that Complainant has produced a prima facie case. Due to Respondent’s failure to respond to these proceedings, the Panel may assume Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <woolrichoutlets.com> domain name. See 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.”); see also Am. Online, Inc. v. AOL Int'l, D2000-0654 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where the respondent fails to respond). The Panel, however, will examine the record to determine whether Respondent possesses rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c).
Complaint argues that Respondent is neither commonly known by the <woolrichoutlets.com> domain name, nor has Complainant given Respondent permission to use Complainant’s mark. The WHOIS information identifies “Mary Jones” as the registrant of the <woolrichoutlets.com> domain name, and there is no further evidence on record that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. The Panel finds that without evidence of Respondent being commonly known by the disputed domain name, Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See IndyMac Bank F.S.B. v. Eshback, FA 830934 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 7, 2006) (finding that the respondent failed to establish rights and legitimate interests in the <emitmortgage.com> domain name as the respondent was not authorized to register domain names featuring the complainant’s mark and failed to submit evidence of that it is 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 Respondent is using the disputed domain name to market and sell counterfeit or otherwise unauthorized products that it presents as Complainant’s goods through a website that is identical to a previous version of Complainant’s official website. Complainant contends that such use, under a confusingly similar domain name, is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name. The Panel agrees and finds that Respondent is not making a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii), where it is using the domain name to market and sell counterfeit goods of Complainant. See Am. Int’l Group, Inc. v. Busby, FA 156251 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 30, 2003) (finding that the respondent attempts to pass itself off as the complainant online, which is blatant unauthorized use of the complainant’s mark and is evidence that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name); see also Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Inversiones HP Milenium C.A., FA 105775 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 12, 2002) (“Respondent’s use of the confusingly similar domain name [<hpmilenium.com>] to sell counterfeit versions of Complainant’s [HP] products is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i).”).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Complainant has presented evidence to show that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name to market and sell unauthorized or counterfeit goods of Complainant. Complainant contends that such competing use of the disputed domain name results in a disruption to Complainant’s business. The Panel agrees and finds that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See Fossil, Inc. v. NAS, FA 92525 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 23, 2000) (transferring the <fossilwatch.com> domain name from the respondent, a watch dealer not otherwise authorized to sell the complainant’s goods, to the complainant); see also G.D. Searle & Co. v. Celebrex Cox-2 Vioxx.com, FA 124508 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 16, 2002) (“Unauthorized use of Complainant’s CELEBREX mark to sell Complainant’s products represents bad faith use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).”).
Complainant further alleges and argues that Respondent commercially benefits from its use of the disputed domain name. Complainant contends that Respondent intentionally attracts Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion between Complainant’s mark and the disputed domain name. The Panel agrees and finds that Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name was made in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Ali, FA 353151 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 13, 2004) (“Respondent [used “HP” in its domain name] to benefit from the goodwill associated with Complainant’s HP marks and us[ed] the <hpdubai.com> domain name, in part, to provide products similar to those of Complainant. Respondent’s practice of diversion, motivated by commercial gain, constitutes bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).”); see also Hunter Fan Co. v. MSS, FA 98067 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 23, 2001) (finding bad faith where the respondent used the disputed domain name to sell the complainant’s products without permission and mislead Internet users by implying that the respondent was affiliated with the complainant).
The Panel finds that 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 <woolrichoutlets.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
John J. Upchurch, Panelist
Dated: March 7, 2011
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page