Steelcase Inc. v. Rampe Purda
Claim Number: FA1101001368832
Complainant is Steelcase Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Lisa R. Harris of Price, Heneveld, Cooper, DeWitt & Litton LLP, Michigan, USA. Respondent is Rampe Purda (“Respondent”), Finland.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <steeelcase.com>, registered with Hebei Guojij Maoyi (Shanghai) Ltd. d/b/a Hebeidomains.com.
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.
Honorable Paul A. Dorf (Ret.) as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on January 21, 2011; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on January 21, 2011. The Complaint was submitted in both the Finnish and English languages.
On January 24, 2011, Hebei Guojij Maoyi (Shanghai) Ltd. d/b/a Hebeidomains.com confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <steeelcase.com> domain name is registered with Hebei Guojij Maoyi (Shanghai) Ltd. d/b/a Hebeidomains.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Hebei Guojij Maoyi (Shanghai) Ltd. d/b/a Hebeidomains.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the Hebei Guojij Maoyi (Shanghai) Ltd. d/b/a Hebeidomains.com 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 Finnish language Complaint and all Annexes, including a Finnish 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@steeelcase.com. Also on January 28, 2011, the Finnish 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 Honorable Paul A. Dorf (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 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 Finnish 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 <steeelcase.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s STEELCASE mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <steeelcase.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <steeelcase.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Steelcase Inc., is a Michigan, USA corporation that manufacturers and sells office furniture globally. Complainant has been operating under the STEELCASE mark since 1920 when it began operations. Complainant owns numerous trademark registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") for its STEELCASE mark (e.g., Reg. No. 534,526 issued December 12, 1950).
Respondent, Rampe Purda, registered the <steeelcase.com> domain name on June 14, 2005. Respondent’s disputed domain name resolves to a website that features a picture of a piece of office furniture with various third-party links to such office furniture selections, that when clicked, bring Internet users to businesses in competition with Complainant.
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 has presented the Panel with evidence indicating that it owns several trademark registrations with the USPTO for its STEELCASE mark (e.g., Reg. No. 534,526 issued December 12, 1950). The Panel finds such evidence sufficient for Complainant to establish rights in its 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 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 contends that Respondent’s <steeelcase.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s STEELCASE mark. Complainant notes that the domain name merely adds an extra letter “e” and the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.” Complainant argues that such changes are not sufficient to render the domain name distinct from its mark. The Panel agrees and finds that Respondent’s disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark under 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 Valpak Direct Mktg. Sys., Inc. v. Manila Indus., Inc., D2006-0714 (WIPO Aug. 17, 2006) (finding the <vallpak.com> domain name to be confusingly similar to the VALPAK mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Complainant alleges that Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <steeelcase.com> domain name. Complainant is required to make a prima facie case in support of these allegations under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Once the Complainant has produced a prima facie case, the burden shifts to Respondent to show they do have a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. See 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.”); see also Swedish Match UK Ltd. v. Admin, Domain, FA 873137 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 13, 2007) (finding that once a prima facie case has been established by the complainant, the burden then shifts to the respondent to demonstrate its rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)). The Panel finds that Complainant has established a prima facie case. Due to the Respondent’s failure to respond to these proceedings the Panel may assume Respondent does not have any right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. See 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); 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.”). Nonetheless, the Panel will continue to evaluate the evidence on record to determine whether Respondent has rights and legitimate interests in the <steeelcase.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c).
Complainant asserts that it has not granted Respondent permission to use its STEELCASE mark, and that Respondent is not commonly known as the <steeelcase.com> domain name. The WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the registrant as “Rampe Purda,” which does not indicate that Respondent is commonly known as the disputed domain name. Respondent has not produced any evidence to show that it is commonly known by the disputed domain name. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed 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 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).
Complainant argues and submits screen shot evidence to show that Respondent’s disputed domain name resolves to a website that features various third-party links to competing office furniture companies under headings that would be of interest to Complainant’s customers. Complainant argues that such use of a confusingly similar domain name is evidence that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Panel finds that Respondent is using the disputed domain name as a links directory website, wherein Respondent placed various third-party links to businesses in competition with Complainant in the office furniture industry on its website under headings for office furniture topics. The Panel determines that such use of the domain name by Respondent is 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 Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Power of Choice Holding Co., FA 621292 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 16, 2006) (finding that the respondent’s use of domain names confusingly similar to the complainant’s WAL-MART mark to divert Internet users seeking the complainant’s goods and services to websites competing with the complainant did 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)); see also Expedia, Inc. v. Compaid, FA 520654 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 30, 2005) (finding that the respondent’s use of the <expediate.com> domain name to redirect Internet users to a website featuring links to travel services that competed with the complainant was not 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)).
Further, Complainant contends that Respondent’s registration and use of the <steeelcase.com> domain name constitutes typosquatting. Complainant argues that Respondent’s registration and use of a typosquatted version of its mark is further evidence of Respondent’s lack of rights and legitimate interests in the domain name. The Panel finds that Respondent did in fact typosquat Complainant’s STEELCASE mark, and that as such Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See Microsoft Corp. v. Domain Registration Philippines, FA 877979 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 20, 2007) (concluding that by registering the <microssoft.com> domain name, the respondent had “engaged in typosquatting, which provides additional evidence that [the] respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).”); see also IndyMac Bank F.S.B. v. Ebeyer, FA 175292 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 19, 2003) (finding that the respondent lacked rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names because it “engaged in the practice of typosquatting by taking advantage of Internet users who attempt to access Complainant's <indymac.com> website but mistakenly misspell Complainant's mark by typing the letter ‘x’ instead of the letter ‘c’”).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Complainant asserts that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name effectively disrupts Complainant’s business and online presence by diverting Internet users to Complainant’s competitors in the office furniture industry. The Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to market and advertise for Complainant’s competitors is evidence of bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name 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).”).
Further, Complainant contends that Respondent is commercially benefitting from its use of the <steeelcase.com> domain name by receiving click-through or affiliate fees from the businesses advertised on Respondent’s website. Complainant argues that Respondent is attempting to attract Internet users to its website by using a close derivative of Complainant’s mark for profit, and that such use is further evidence of Respondent’s bad faith registration and use. The Panel agrees and finds that Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name is evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Velv, LLC v. AAE, FA 677922 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 25, 2006) (finding that the respondent’s use of the <arizonashuttle.net> domain name, which contained the complainant’s ARIZONA SHUTTLE mark, to attract Internet traffic to the respondent’s website offering competing travel services violated Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)); see also Dell Inc. v. Innervision Web Solutions, FA 445601 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 23, 2005) (finding evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the respondent was using the <dellcomputerssuck.com> domain name to divert Internet users to respondent’s website offering competing computer products and services).
Lastly, Complainant alleges that Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name that is a typosquatted version of its STEELCASE mark is also evidence of bad faith registration and use by Respondent. The Panel has already determined that Respondent’s registration of the <steeelcase.com> domain name constitutes typosquatting. Further, the Panel finds that Respondent’s registration of a domain name containing such a misspelling and typosquatted version of Complainant’s mark is further evidence of Respondent’s bad faith 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 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 <steeelcase.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Honorable Paul A. Dorf (Ret.), Panelist
Dated: March 10, 2011
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page