Ecolab USA Inc. v. Nijat Hassanov
Claim Number: FA1103001378085
Complainant is Ecolab USA Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Jayant Kumar of ALG India Law Offices, India. Respondent is Nijat Hassanov (“Respondent”), Azerbaijan.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <eccolab.com>, registered with MONIKER ONLINE SERVICES, 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 15, 2011; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on March 15, 2011.
On March 17, 2011, MONIKER ONLINE SERVICES, INC. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <eccolab.com> domain name is registered with MONIKER ONLINE SERVICES, INC. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. MONIKER ONLINE SERVICES, INC. has verified that Respondent is bound by the MONIKER ONLINE SERVICES, 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 21, 2011, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 11, 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@eccolab.com. Also on March 21, 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 13, 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.
Respondent has submitted correspondence which does not meet the requirements of ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy to be considered a Response. Notwithstanding in the interests of justice, fairness and equity the essence of the submission has been taken into consideration in the determination of this decision.
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.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant makes the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s <eccolab.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ECOLAB mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <eccolab.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <eccolab.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Ecolab USA Inc., markets and offers programs and services to the foodservice, food and beverage process, hospitality, healthcare, government and education, retail, textile care, commercial facilities, and vehicle wash industries. Complainant’s company serves customers in more than 170 countries through its more than 26,000 associates, and is currently ranked number 365 in Fortune 500 magazine. Complainant owns several trademark registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") for its ECOLAB mark including, (e.g., Reg. No. 1,525,025 issued February 21, 1989).
Respondent, Nijat Hassanov, registered the <eccolab.com> domain name on May 30, 2005. Respondent’s disputed domain name resolves to a website that displays third-party links to commercial websites, some of which are 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.
The Panel finds that Complainant has established rights in its ECOLAB mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through its trademark registrations with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 1,525,025 issued February 21, 1989). 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 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 <eccolab.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ECOLAB mark. Complainant argues that the domain name merely adds an extra and unnecessary letter “c” to its mark, as well as the required generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com,” and that such additions are not sufficient to render the domain name distinct from Complainant’s mark. The Panel agrees and finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). 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); see also Victoria’s Secret v. Zuccarini, FA 95762 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 18, 2000) (finding that, by misspelling words and adding letters to words, a respondent does not create a distinct mark but nevertheless renders the domain name confusingly similar to the complainant’s marks).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Complainant alleges that Respondent does not have any rights and legitimate interests in the <eccolab.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 <eccolab.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).
Complainant asserts that the WHOIS information for the disputed domain name identifies “Nijat Hassanov” as the registrant of the domain name in question. Therefore, Complainant argues that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. The Panel agrees and finds that based upon the WHOIS information and all evidence on record, that Respondent is not commonly known by 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 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 further argues that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name. Complainant alleges that Respondent is using the disputed domain name as a commercial links directory, where the only content on the website are third-party links to commercial websites, some of which offer competing products and services. The Panel finds that such use of a confusingly similar domain name 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 Vance Int’l, Inc. v. Abend, FA 970871 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 8, 2007) (concluding that the operation of a pay-per-click website at a confusingly similar domain name does not represent a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, regardless of whether or not the links resolve to competing or unrelated websites or if the respondent is itself commercially profiting from the click-through fees); see also 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)).
Further, Complainant offers evidence to show that Respondent is offering to sell the disputed domain name for a minimum bid of $2,500 USD. The Panel finds that such an offer by Respondent to dispose of its rights in the domain name is also evidence that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See Reese v. Morgan, FA 917029 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 5, 2007) (finding that the respondent’s willingness to sell a contested domain name for more than its out-of-pocket costs provided additional evidence that Respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in the contested domain name); see also Vance Int’l, Inc. v. Abend, FA 970871 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 8, 2007) (“UDRP precedent is clear that auctioning domains does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods and services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of domains.”).
Lastly, Complainant contends that Respondent’s registration of the <eccolab.com> domain name constitutes typosquatting, and is further evidence that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Panel finds that Respondent’s registration of an easily misspelled version of Complainant’s mark in the disputed domain name is typosquatting, and is further evidence that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. see 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’”); see also LTD Commodities LLC v. Party Night, Inc., FA 165155 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 14, 2003) (finding that the <ltdcommadities.com>, <ltdcommmodities.com>, and <ltdcommodaties.com> domain names were intentional misspellings of Complainant's LTD COMMODITIES mark and this “‘typosquatting’ is evidence that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names”).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Complainant has shown that Respondent is attempting to sell the disputed domain name in the open market for a minimum bid of $2,500. Complainant argues that such an attempt is evidence that Respondent registered the domain name for its commercial value, and that such evidence indicates Respondent’s bad faith registration and use. The Panel agrees and finds that Respondent’s attempt to sell the disputed domain name for $2,500 in an open market is evidence that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(i). See George Weston Bakeries Inc. v. McBroom, FA 933276 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 25, 2007) (concluding that the respondent registered and was using the <gwbakeries.mobi> domain name in bad faith according to Policy ¶ 4(b)(i) where it offered it for sale for far more than its estimated out-of-pocket costs it incurred in initially registering the disputed domain name); see also Neiman Marcus Group, Inc. v. AchievementTec, Inc., FA 192316 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 15, 2003) (finding the respondent’s offer to sell the domain name for $2,000 sufficient evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(i)).
Further, Complainant argues that Respondent is using the disputed domain name to post various third-party links to commercial websites, including those that offer competing goods and services. Complainant contends that this use results in a loss of business for Complainant and is further evidence of Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the domain name. The Panel agrees and finds that Respondent’s use of the domain name as identified within this decision is evidence that Respondent registered and is using the domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See 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).”); see also David Hall Rare Coins v. Tex. Int’l Prop. Assocs., FA 915206 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 9, 2007) (finding that the respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) because respondent used the disputed domain name to advertise goods and services of complainant’s competitors, thereby disrupting the complainant’s business).
Complainant has also shown that Respondent is using the disputed domain name to host a website that displays various third-party links to competing and unrelated companies. The Panel assumes, without the benefit of a Response from Respondent, that Respondent is commercially profiting from its use of the domain name in such a manner. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent has also registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith 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).
Lastly, the Panel has already determined that Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name constitutes typosquatting. Complainant argues that Respondent’s use of a common misspelling of its ECOLAB mark in a domain name is further evidence of bad faith by Respondent. The Panel agrees and finds that Respondent’s registration and use of a domain name that contains a common misspelling of Complainant’s mark is also evidence of bad faith registration and use 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 <eccolab.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Hon. Ralph Yachnin, Panelist
Justice, Supreme Court, NY (Ret.)
Dated: April 14, 2011
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page