Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Damien Williams
Claim Number: FA1103001376704
Complainant is Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (“Complainant”), represented by Daniel Rockey of Bullivant Houser Bailey P.C., California, USA. Respondent is Damien Williams (“Respondent”), New York, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <samsungverdict.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, Inc.
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.
Judge Ralph Yachnin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on March 8, 2011; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on March 8, 2011.
On March 9, 2011, GoDaddy.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <samsungverdict.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 disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On March 11, 2011, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 31, 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@samsungverdict.com. Also on March 11, 2011, 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 April 5, 2011, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Judge Ralph Yachnin 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 <samsungverdict.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s SAMSUNG mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <samsungverdict.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <samsungverdict.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., holds multiple trademark registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) for its SAMSUNG mark (e.g., Reg. No. 1,164,353 issued August 11, 1981). Complainant uses its SAMSUNG mark to design, market, and sell semiconductor, telecommunication, digital media, digital convergence technologies, and cell phones. Complainant’s latest cell phone will be called the SAMSUNG VERDICT.
Respondent, Damien Williams, registered the <samsungverdict.com> domain name on February 11, 2011. The disputed domain name resolves to a parked website featuring hyperlinks to Complainant’s competitors in the cell phone 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.
The Panel finds Complainant has established rights in its SAMSUNG mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), by holding multiple trademark registrations with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 1,164,353 issued August 11, 1981). 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 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).
The Panel concludes that Respondent’s <samsungverdict.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s SAMSUNG mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), as the disputed domain name only adds the descriptive term “verdict,” which describes Complainant’s potential new cell phone, and the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.” See Gillette Co. v. RFK Assocs., FA 492867 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 28, 2005) (finding that the additions of the term “batteries,” which described the complainant’s products, and the generic top-level domain “.com” were insufficient to distinguish the respondent’s <duracellbatteries.com> from the complainant’s DURACELL mark); see also Reese v. Morgan, FA 917029 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 5, 2007) (finding that the mere addition of the generic top-level domain “.com” is insufficient to differentiate a disputed domain name from a mark).
The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant has alleged that Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <samsungverdict.com> domain name. Once Complainant makes a prima facie case in support of its allegations, the burden shifts to Respondent to prove that it does have rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). The Panel finds Complainant has made a sufficient prima facie case. Due to Respondent’s failure to respond to the Complaint, the Panel may assume that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed 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 Do the Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000-0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (“Failure of a respondent to come forward to [contest complainant’s allegations] is tantamount to admitting the truth of complainant’s assertions in this regard.”); 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.”).
Complainant asserts that it has not provided Respondent with permission to use Complainant’s SAMSUNG mark. The WHOIS information identifies the registrant of the disputed domain name as “Damien Williams,” which is not similar to the <samsungverdict.com> domain name. Respondent has failed to provide evidence that it is commonly known by the disputed domain name and the Panel has failed to find any independent evidence of such in the record. Therefore, the Panel holds that Respondent is not commonly known by the <samsungverdict.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 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).
Respondent’s <samsungverdict.com> domain name resolves to a parked website that contains hyperlinks to Complainant’s competitors in the cell phone industry. The Panel presumes Respondent receives click-through fees from these hyperlinks. The Panel concludes that Respondent is not making 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). See Skyhawke Techs., 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).”); see also Educ. Broad. Corp. v. DomainWorks Inc., FA 882172 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 18, 2007) (holding that the respondent’s use of the contested domain name to maintain a commercial website with links to the products and services of the complainant’s competitors did not represent 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 Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Respondent’s <samsungverdict.com> domain name disrupts Complainant’s business by providing hyperlinks to Complainant’s competitors on a website resolving from a domain name that contains Complainant’s mark. Internet users interested in Complainant’s cell phones may then purchase cell phones from a competitor. For this reason, the Panel finds Respondent has registered and uses the <samsungverdict.com> domain name in 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).”).
Respondent likely profits from the aforementioned hyperlinks through the receipt of click-through fees. Respondent has registered a domain name that contains Complainant’s SAMSUNG mark and is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark. The Panel determines that Respondent is attempting to create confusion as to Complainant’s affiliation with the disputed domain name in order to lure Internet users to the resolving website and profit when the hyperlinks are clicked on. The Panel holds that such a use is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to 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).
Complainant registered a trademark application with the USPTO for its SAMSUNG VERDICT mark on November 22, 2010 (Ser. No. 85,182,471). While Complainant has not made any announcement about a new cell phone product, a third-party website wrote a post that stated Complainant’s new smart phone would be called SAMSUNG VERDICT. This post was written in January of 2011. Respondent registered the disputed domain name on February 11, 2011. The Panel determines that Respondent’s opportunistic registration of the disputed domain name is evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Sota v. Waldron, D2001-0351 (WIPO June 18, 2001) (finding that the respondent’s registration of the <seveballesterostrophy.com> domain name at the time of the announcement of the Seve Ballesteros Trophy golf tournament “strongly indicates an opportunistic registration”); see also Tech. Props., Inc. v. Hussain, FA 95411 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 14, 2000) (“The Respondent took advantage of the public announcement that Tandy Corporation was changing its name to RadioShack by registering the domain names on the same day as a public announcement of a company’s name change. This is also evidence of bad faith.”).
The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <samsungverdict.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Hon. Ralph Yachnin, Panelist
Justice, Supreme Court, NY (Ret.)
Dated: April 5, 2011
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page