Steelcase Inc. v. Rampe Purda
Claim Number: FA1101001368833
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 <seelcase.com>, registered with HEBEI GUOJI MAOYI (SHANGHAI) LTD d/b/a HEBEIDOMAINS.COM.
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.
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 Finnish and English.
On January 24, 2011, HEBEI GUOJI MAOYI (SHANGHAI) LTD d/b/a HEBEIDOMAINS.COM confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <seelcase.com> domain name is registered with HEBEI GUOJI MAOYI (SHANGHAI) LTD d/b/a HEBEIDOMAINS.COM and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. HEBEI GUOJI MAOYI (SHANGHAI) LTD d/b/a HEBEIDOMAINS.COM has verified that Respondent is bound by the HEBEI GUOJI 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 February 2, 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 22, 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@seelcase.com. Also on February 2, 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 25, 2011, 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 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.
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 <seelcase.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s STEELCASE mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <seelcase.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <seelcase.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Steelcase Inc., is a Michigan corporation and global provider of office furniture. Complainant owns the STEELCASE mark and uses the mark in connection with the development and sale of its office furniture products. Complainants holds numerous trademark registrations for its STEELCASE mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 534,526 issued December 12, 1950).
Respondent, Rampe Purda, registered the <seelcase.com> domain name on March 25, 2010. The disputed domain name resolves to a directory website featuring third-party links, some unrelated to Complainant’s business and some in direct competition with Complainant in the office furniture industry.
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 maintains that it has established rights in its STEELCASE mark. Prior panels have come to the conclusion that a complainant can establish rights in a mark through federal trademark registration. See Morgan Stanley v. Fitz-James, FA 571918 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 29, 2005) (finding from a preponderance of the evidence that the complainant had registered its mark with national trademark authorities, the Panel determined that “such registrations present a prima facie case of Complainant’s rights in the mark for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”); see also Microsoft Corp. v. Burkes, FA 652743 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 17, 2006) (“Complainant has established rights in the MICROSOFT mark through registration of the mark with the USPTO.”). The Panel determines that Respondent is not required to have trademark registration in the country of Respondent. See KCTS Television Inc. v. Get-on-the-Web Ltd., D2001-0154 (WIPO Apr. 20, 2001) (holding that it does not matter for the purpose of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy whether the complainant’s mark is registered in a country other than that of the respondent’s place of business); see also 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). Here, Complainant holds numerous trademark registrations of its STEELCASE mark with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 534,526 issued December 12, 1950). The Panel finds that Complainant has demonstrated its rights to the STEELCASE mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through its federal trademark registration.
Complainant argues that Respondent’s <seelcase.com> domain name is confusingly similar to its STEELCASE mark. The disputed domain name uses Complainant’s mark in its entirety and differs from the mark only by deleting the letter “t,” and adding the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.” The Panel finds that the deletion of a single letter fails to properly distinguish the disputed domain name from Complainant’s mark. See Reuters Ltd. v. Global Net 2000, Inc., D2000-0441 (WIPO July 13, 2000) (finding that a domain name which differs by only one letter from a trademark has a greater tendency to be confusingly similar to the trademark where the trademark is highly distinctive). The Panel also finds that the addition of a gTLD does not sufficiently distinguish the disputed domain name from Complainant’s mark. See 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 that Respondent’s disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s STEELCASE mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
The Panel finds that Policy 4(a)(i) has been met.
Complainant argues that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <seelcase.com> domain name. In Domtar, Inc. v. Theriault., FA 1089426 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 4, 2008), the panel decided 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.” Here, Complainant has made a prima facie case supporting its claims against Respondent. Given Respondent’s failure to submit a response to the Complaint, the Panel may assume that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See Parfums Christian Dior v. QTR Corp., D2000-0023 (WIPO Mar. 9, 2000) (finding that by not submitting a response, the respondent has failed to invoke any circumstance which could demonstrate any rights or legitimate interests in the domain name). However, the Panel chooses to examine the record and determine whether Respondent has rights or legitimate interests under Policy ¶ 4(c).
Complainant alleges that Respondent is not commonly known by the <seelcase.com> domain name. The WHOIS information identifies Respondent as “Rampe Purda,” which is not similar to the disputed domain name. Complainant maintains that Respondent is not affiliated with, nor has Respondent been licensed by, Complainant to use its STEELCASE mark in the disputed domain name. The Panel finds no additional information in the record that supports a finding that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name, therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by the <seelcase.com> domain name under 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 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).
Respondent uses the <seelcase.com> domain name to redirect Internet users to a directory website featuring commercial links, some of which directly compete with Complainant’s office furniture business. Respondent likely profits from these links through the receipt of click-through fees. The Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to operate a website which may compete with Complainant’s business and that creates profit for Respondent’s, 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 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); see also Jerry Damson, Inc. v. Tex. Int’l Prop. Assocs., FA 916991 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 10, 2007) (concluding that the use of a confusingly similar domain name to operate a portal with hyperlinks to various third-party websites, some of which may be in direct competition with a complainant, 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 disputed domain name includes Complainant’s STEELCASE mark and simply deletes a single letter to make a typographical error. Complainant argues that the typographical error takes advantage of Internet users making common typing mistakes while searching for Complaint and redirects them to Respondent’s website. The Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the <seelcase.com> domain name is additional evidence that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests pursuant to 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 met.
Complainant contends that Respondent’s use of the <seelcase.com> domain name disrupts its business. Respondent uses the disputed domain name to host a directory website featuring links to some of Complainant’s competitors in the office furniture business. Internet users intending to purchase products from Complainant may find Respondent’s website as a result of the confusingly similar domain name and purchase office furniture from a competitor instead. The Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name does disrupt Complainant’s business and is evidence of bad faith use and registration 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 Classic Metal Roofs, LLC v. Interlock Indus., Ltd., FA 724554 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 1, 2006) (finding that the respondent registered and used the <classicmetalroofing.com> domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) by redirecting Internet users to the respondent’s competing website).
The Panel infers that Respondent receives click-through fees from the aforementioned third-party links. Internet users searching for Complainant’s website may find Respondent’s website instead and due to the confusingly similar disputed domain name, users may become confused as to Complainant’s sponsorship of, or affiliation with, the resolving website and third-party links. Respondent tries to capitalize off this misperception by receiving click-through fees. The Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the <seelcase.com> domain name for profit constitutes bad faith use and registration 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 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).
As previously established, the typographical error in the disputed domain name seems to take advantage of Internet users making common typing mistakes. Respondent’s <seelcase.com> domain name includes Complainant’s mark only with the deletion of the single letter “t,” to make a typographical error. The Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name evidences bad faith use and registration according to 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 Internet Movie Database, Inc. v. Temme, FA 449837 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 24, 2005) (“Respondent's registration of the domain names in dispute constitutes bad faith because the domain names are merely typosquatted versions of the [complainant’s] IMDB mark.)
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been met.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <seelcase.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Honorable Karl V. Fink (Ret.), Panelist
Dated: March 3, 2011
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page