Digi-Key Corporation v. Annie Brown a/k/a David Walker a/k/a Emma Lively a/k/a Emma Roberts a/k/a Jacky White a/k/a Jim Green a/k/a John Williams a/k/a Kim Gomez a/k/a Nicole Miller a/k/a Richard Wilson a/k/a Taylor Theron a/k/a Tom Roberts a/k/a Tomas Smith
Claim Number: FA1105001390069
Complainant is Digi-Key Corporation (“Complainant”), represented by UDRP Coordinator of Alias Encore, Inc., California, USA. Respondent is Annie Brown a/k/a David Walker a/k/a Emma Lively a/k/a Emma Roberts a/k/a Jacky White a/k/a Jim Green a/k/a John Williams a/k/a Kim Gomez a/k/a Nicole Miller a/k/a Richard Wilson a/k/a Taylor Theron a/k/a Tom Roberts a/k/a Tomas Smith (“Respondent”), China.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <digikey‐netherlands.com>, <digi‐keyiceland.com>, <digikey‐turkey.com>, <digikeynewzealand.com>, <digikeyinc.com>, <digi‐keyturkey.com>, <digikey‐newzealand.com>, <digikey‐inc.com>, <digikeyukraine.com>, <digi‐keynewzealand.com>, <digi‐keyinc.com>, <digikey‐ukraine.com>, <digikeynorway.com>, <digikeyindonesia.com>, <digi‐keyukraine.com>, <digikey‐norway.com>, <digikey‐indonesia.com>, <digikeyvietnam.com>, <digi‐keynorway.com>, <digi‐keyindonesia.com>, <digikey‐vietnam.com>, <digikeypakistan.com>, <digikeychile.com>, <digi‐keyvietnam.com>, <digikey‐pakistan.com>, <digikey‐chile.com>, <atlanticdigikey.com>, <digi‐keypakistan.com>, <digi‐keychile.com>, <digi‐key‐electronics.com>, <digikeyperu.com>, <digikeycolombia.com>, <digi‐key‐engineer.com>, <digikey‐peru.com>, <digikey‐colombia.com>, <digi‐key‐engineering.com>, <digi‐keyperu.com>, <digi‐keycolombia.com>, <digi‐key‐engineers.com>, <digikeyphilippines.com>, <digikeycroatia.com>, <digi‐key‐marketing.com>, <digikey‐philippines.com>, <digikey‐croatia.com>, <digi‐key‐supplychain.com>, <digi‐keyphilippines.com>, <digi‐keycroatia.com>, <digi‐key‐tech.com>, <digikeypoland.com>, <digikeydenmark.com>, <digi‐key‐university.com>, <digikey‐poland.com>, <digikey‐denmark.com>, <digi‐key‐vbd.com>, <digi‐keypoland.com>, <digi‐keydenmark.com>, <digi‐key‐volumebusiness.com>, <digikeyromania.com>, <digikeysaudi.com>, <digikeying.com>, <digikey‐romania.com>, <digikey‐saudi.com>, <digi‐keying.com>, <digi‐keyromania.com>, <digi‐keysaudi.com>, <digikeyiran.com>, <digikeyrussia.com>, <digikeysingapore.com>, <digikey‐iran.com>, <digikey‐russia.com>, <digikey‐singapore.com>, <digi‐keyiran.com>, <digi‐keyrussia.com>, <digi‐keysingapore.com>, <digikeyireland.com>, <digikey‐sample.com>, <digikeyslovenia.com>, <digikey‐ireland.com>, <digikeylatvia.com>, <digikey‐slovenia.com>, <digi‐keyireland.com>, <digikey‐latvia.com>, <digi‐keyslovenia.com>, <digikeyisrael.com>, <digi‐keylatvia.com>, <digikeysouthafrica.com>, <digikey‐israel.com>, <digikeylebanon.com>, <digikey‐southafrica.com>, <digi‐keyisrael.com>, <digikey‐lebanon.com>, <digi‐keysouthafrica.com>, <digikeykorea.com>, <digi‐keylebanon.com>, <digikey‐supplier.com>, <digikey‐korea.com>, <digikey‐malaysia.com>, <digikeysweden.com>, <digi‐keykorea.com>, <digikeymexico.com>, <digikey‐sweden.com>, <digikeyegypt.com>, <digikey‐mexico.com>, <digi‐keysweden.com>, <digikey‐egypt.com>, <digi‐keymexico.com>, <digikeyswitzerland.com>, <digi‐keyegypt.com>, <digikeynetherlands.com>, <digikey‐switzerland.com>, <digikeyestonia.com>, <digi‐keynetherlands.com>, <digi‐keyswitzerland.com>, <digikey‐estonia.com>, <digikeymalaysia.com>, <digikeythailand.com>, <digi‐keyestonia.com>, <digi‐keymalaysia.com>, <digikey‐thailand.com>, <digikeyfinland.com>, <digikeyhungary.com>, <digi‐keythailand.com>, <digikey‐finland.com>, <digikey‐hungary.com>, <digikeytunisia.com>, <digi‐keyfinland.com>, <digi‐keyhungary.com>, <digikey‐tunisia.com>, <digikey‐germany.com>, <digikeyiceland.com>, <digi‐keytunisia.com>, <digikeygreece.com>, <digikey‐iceland.com>, <digikeyturkey.com>, <digikey‐greece.com>, and <digi‐keygreece.com>, registered with Melbourne IT, Ltd. d/b/a Internet Names Worldwide.
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 May 20, 2011; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on May 23, 2011.
On May 25, 2011, Melbourne IT, Ltd. d/b/a Internet Names Worldwide confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <digikey‐netherlands.com>, <digi‐keyiceland.com>, <digikey‐turkey.com>, <digikeynewzealand.com>, <digikeyinc.com>, <digi‐keyturkey.com>, <digikey‐newzealand.com>, <digikey‐inc.com>, <digikeyukraine.com>, <digi‐keynewzealand.com>, <digi‐keyinc.com>, <digikey‐ukraine.com>, <digikeynorway.com>, <digikeyindonesia.com>, <digi‐keyukraine.com>, <digikey‐norway.com>, <digikey‐indonesia.com>, <digikeyvietnam.com>, <digi‐keynorway.com>, <digi‐keyindonesia.com>, <digikey‐vietnam.com>, <digikeypakistan.com>, <digikeychile.com>, <digi‐keyvietnam.com>, <digikey‐pakistan.com>, <digikey‐chile.com>, <atlanticdigikey.com>, <digi‐keypakistan.com>, <digi‐keychile.com>, <digi‐key‐electronics.com>, <digikeyperu.com>, <digikeycolombia.com>, <digi‐key‐engineer.com>, <digikey‐peru.com>, <digikey‐colombia.com>, <digi‐key‐engineering.com>, <digi‐keyperu.com>, <digi‐keycolombia.com>, <digi‐key‐engineers.com>, <digikeyphilippines.com>, <digikeycroatia.com>, <digi‐key‐marketing.com>, <digikey‐philippines.com>, <digikey‐croatia.com>, <digi‐key‐supplychain.com>, <digi‐keyphilippines.com>, <digi‐keycroatia.com>, <digi‐key‐tech.com>, <digikeypoland.com>, <digikeydenmark.com>, <digi‐key‐university.com>, <digikey‐poland.com>, <digikey‐denmark.com>, <digi‐key‐vbd.com>, <digi‐keypoland.com>, <digi‐keydenmark.com>, <digi‐key‐volumebusiness.com>, <digikeyromania.com>, <digikeysaudi.com>, <digikeying.com>, <digikey‐romania.com>, <digikey‐saudi.com>, <digi‐keying.com>, <digi‐keyromania.com>, <digi‐keysaudi.com>, <digikeyiran.com>, <digikeyrussia.com>, <digikeysingapore.com>, <digikey‐iran.com>, <digikey‐russia.com>, <digikey‐singapore.com>, <digi‐keyiran.com>, <digi‐keyrussia.com>, <digi‐keysingapore.com>, <digikeyireland.com>, <digikey‐sample.com>, <digikeyslovenia.com>, <digikey‐ireland.com>, <digikeylatvia.com>, <digikey‐slovenia.com>, <digi‐keyireland.com>, <digikey‐latvia.com>, <digi‐keyslovenia.com>, <digikeyisrael.com>, <digi‐keylatvia.com>, <digikeysouthafrica.com>, <digikey‐israel.com>, <digikeylebanon.com>, <digikey‐southafrica.com>, <digi‐keyisrael.com>, <digikey‐lebanon.com>, <digi‐keysouthafrica.com>, <digikeykorea.com>, <digi‐keylebanon.com>, <digikey‐supplier.com>, <digikey‐korea.com>, <digikey‐malaysia.com>, <digikeysweden.com>, <digi‐keykorea.com>, <digikeymexico.com>, <digikey‐sweden.com>, <digikeyegypt.com>, <digikey‐mexico.com>, <digi‐keysweden.com>, <digikey‐egypt.com>, <digi‐keymexico.com>, <digikeyswitzerland.com>, <digi‐keyegypt.com>, <digikeynetherlands.com>, <digikey‐switzerland.com>, <digikeyestonia.com>, <digi‐keynetherlands.com>, <digi‐keyswitzerland.com>, <digikey‐estonia.com>, <digikeymalaysia.com>, <digikeythailand.com>, <digi‐keyestonia.com>, <digi‐keymalaysia.com>, <digikey‐thailand.com>, <digikeyfinland.com>, <digikeyhungary.com>, <digi‐keythailand.com>, <digikey‐finland.com>, <digikey‐hungary.com>, <digikeytunisia.com>, <digi‐keyfinland.com>, <digi‐keyhungary.com>, <digikey‐tunisia.com>, <digikey‐germany.com>, <digikeyiceland.com>, <digi‐keytunisia.com>, <digikeygreece.com>, <digikey‐iceland.com>, <digikeyturkey.com>, <digikey‐greece.com>, and <digi‐keygreece.com> domain names are registered with Melbourne IT, Ltd. d/b/a Internet Names Worldwide and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Melbourne IT, Ltd. d/b/a Internet Names Worldwide has verified that Respondent is bound by the Melbourne IT, Ltd. d/b/a Internet Names Worldwide 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 May 31, 2011, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of June 20, 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@digikey‐netherlands.com, postmaster@digi‐keyiceland.com, postmaster@digikey‐turkey.com, postmaster@digikeynewzealand.com, postmaster@digikeyinc.com, postmaster@digi‐keyturkey.com, postmaster@digikey‐newzealand.com, postmaster@digikey‐inc.com, postmaster@digikeyukraine.com, postmaster@digi‐keynewzealand.com, postmaster@digi‐keyinc.com, postmaster@digikey‐ukraine.com, postmaster@digikeynorway.com, postmaster@digikeyindonesia.com, postmaster@digi‐keyukraine.com, postmaster@digikey‐norway.com, postmaster@digikey‐indonesia.com, postmaster@digikeyvietnam.com, postmaster@digi‐keynorway.com, postmaster@digi‐keyindonesia.com, postmaster@digikey‐vietnam.com, postmaster@digikeypakistan.com, postmaster@digikeychile.com, postmaster@digi‐keyvietnam.com, postmaster@digikey‐pakistan.com, postmaster@digikey‐chile.com, postmaster@atlanticdigikey.com, postmaster@digi‐keypakistan.com, postmaster@digi‐keychile.com, postmaster@digi‐key‐electronics.com, postmaster@digikeyperu.com, postmaster@digikeycolombia.com, postmaster@digi‐key‐engineer.com, postmaster@digikey‐peru.com, postmaster@digikey‐colombia.com, postmaster@digi‐key‐engineering.com, postmaster@digi‐keyperu.com, postmaster@digi‐keycolombia.com, postmaster@digi‐key‐engineers.com, postmaster@digikeyphilippines.com, postmaster@digikeycroatia.com, postmaster@digi‐key‐marketing.com, postmaster@digikey‐philippines.com, postmaster@digikey‐croatia.com, postmaster@digi‐key‐supplychain.com, postmaster@digi‐keyphilippines.com, postmaster@digi‐keycroatia.com, postmaster@digi‐key‐tech.com, postmaster@digikeypoland.com, postmaster@digikeydenmark.com, postmaster@digi‐key‐university.com, postmaster@digikey‐poland.com, postmaster@digikey‐denmark.com, postmaster@digi‐key‐vbd.com, postmaster@digi‐keypoland.com, postmaster@digi‐keydenmark.com, postmaster@digi‐key‐volumebusiness.com, postmaster@digikeyromania.com, postmaster@digikeysaudi.com, postmaster@digikeying.com, postmaster@digikey‐romania.com, postmaster@digikey‐saudi.com, postmaster@digi‐keying.com, postmaster@digi‐keyromania.com, postmaster@digi‐keysaudi.com, postmaster@digikeyiran.com, postmaster@digikeyrussia.com, postmaster@digikeysingapore.com, postmaster@digikey‐iran.com, postmaster@digikey‐russia.com, postmaster@digikey‐singapore.com, postmaster@digi‐keyiran.com, postmaster@digi‐keyrussia.com, postmaster@digi‐keysingapore.com, postmaster@digikeyireland.com, postmaster@digikey‐sample.com, postmaster@digikeyslovenia.com, postmaster@digikey‐ireland.com, postmaster@digikeylatvia.com, postmaster@digikey‐slovenia.com, postmaster@digi‐keyireland.com, postmaster@digikey‐latvia.com, postmaster@digi‐keyslovenia.com, postmaster@digikeyisrael.com, postmaster@digi‐keylatvia.com, postmaster@digikeysouthafrica.com, postmaster@digikey‐israel.com, postmaster@digikeylebanon.com, postmaster@digikey‐southafrica.com, postmaster@digi‐keyisrael.com, postmaster@digikey‐lebanon.com, postmaster@digi‐keysouthafrica.com, postmaster@digikeykorea.com, postmaster@digi‐keylebanon.com, postmaster@digikey‐supplier.com, postmaster@digikey‐korea.com, postmaster@digikey‐malaysia.com, postmaster@digikeysweden.com, postmaster@digi‐keykorea.com, postmaster@digikeymexico.com, postmaster@digikey‐sweden.com, postmaster@digikeyegypt.com, postmaster@digikey‐mexico.com, postmaster@digi‐keysweden.com, postmaster@digikey‐egypt.com, postmaster@digi‐keymexico.com, postmaster@digikeyswitzerland.com, postmaster@digi‐keyegypt.com, postmaster@digikeynetherlands.com, postmaster@digikey‐switzerland.com, postmaster@digikeyestonia.com, postmaster@digi‐keynetherlands.com, postmaster@digi‐keyswitzerland.com, postmaster@digikey‐estonia.com, postmaster@digikeymalaysia.com, postmaster@digikeythailand.com, postmaster@digi‐keyestonia.com, postmaster@digi‐keymalaysia.com, postmaster@digikey‐thailand.com, postmaster@digikeyfinland.com, postmaster@digikeyhungary.com, postmaster@digi‐keythailand.com, postmaster@digikey‐finland.com, postmaster@digikey‐hungary.com, postmaster@digikeytunisia.com, postmaster@digi‐keyfinland.com, postmaster@digi‐keyhungary.com, postmaster@digikey‐tunisia.com, postmaster@digikey‐germany.com, postmaster@digikeyiceland.com, postmaster@digi‐keytunisia.com, postmaster@digikeygreece.com, postmaster@digikey‐iceland.com, postmaster@digikeyturkey.com, postmaster@digikey‐greece.com, and postmaster@digi‐keygreece.com. Also on May 31, 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 June 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.
Complainant requests that the domain names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant makes the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s <digikey‐netherlands.com>, <digi‐keyiceland.com>, <digikey‐turkey.com>, <digikeynewzealand.com>, <digikeyinc.com>, <digi‐keyturkey.com>, <digikey‐newzealand.com>, <digikey‐inc.com>, <digikeyukraine.com>, <digi‐keynewzealand.com>, <digi‐keyinc.com>, <digikey‐ukraine.com>, <digikeynorway.com>, <digikeyindonesia.com>, <digi‐keyukraine.com>, <digikey‐norway.com>, <digikey‐indonesia.com>, <digikeyvietnam.com>, <digi‐keynorway.com>, <digi‐keyindonesia.com>, <digikey‐vietnam.com>, <digikeypakistan.com>, <digikeychile.com>, <digi‐keyvietnam.com>, <digikey‐pakistan.com>, <digikey‐chile.com>, <atlanticdigikey.com>, <digi‐keypakistan.com>, <digi‐keychile.com>, <digi‐key‐electronics.com>, <digikeyperu.com>, <digikeycolombia.com>, <digi‐key‐engineer.com>, <digikey‐peru.com>, <digikey‐colombia.com>, <digi‐key‐engineering.com>, <digi‐keyperu.com>, <digi‐keycolombia.com>, <digi‐key‐engineers.com>, <digikeyphilippines.com>, <digikeycroatia.com>, <digi‐key‐marketing.com>, <digikey‐philippines.com>, <digikey‐croatia.com>, <digi‐key‐supplychain.com>, <digi‐keyphilippines.com>, <digi‐keycroatia.com>, <digi‐key‐tech.com>, <digikeypoland.com>, <digikeydenmark.com>, <digi‐key‐university.com>, <digikey‐poland.com>, <digikey‐denmark.com>, <digi‐key‐vbd.com>, <digi‐keypoland.com>, <digi‐keydenmark.com>, <digi‐key‐volumebusiness.com>, <digikeyromania.com>, <digikeysaudi.com>, <digikeying.com>, <digikey‐romania.com>, <digikey‐saudi.com>, <digi‐keying.com>, <digi‐keyromania.com>, <digi‐keysaudi.com>, <digikeyiran.com>, <digikeyrussia.com>, <digikeysingapore.com>, <digikey‐iran.com>, <digikey‐russia.com>, <digikey‐singapore.com>, <digi‐keyiran.com>, <digi‐keyrussia.com>, <digi‐keysingapore.com>, <digikeyireland.com>, <digikey‐sample.com>, <digikeyslovenia.com>, <digikey‐ireland.com>, <digikeylatvia.com>, <digikey‐slovenia.com>, <digi‐keyireland.com>, <digikey‐latvia.com>, <digi‐keyslovenia.com>, <digikeyisrael.com>, <digi‐keylatvia.com>, <digikeysouthafrica.com>, <digikey‐israel.com>, <digikeylebanon.com>, <digikey‐southafrica.com>, <digi‐keyisrael.com>, <digikey‐lebanon.com>, <digi‐keysouthafrica.com>, <digikeykorea.com>, <digi‐keylebanon.com>, <digikey‐supplier.com>, <digikey‐korea.com>, <digikey‐malaysia.com>, <digikeysweden.com>, <digi‐keykorea.com>, <digikeymexico.com>, <digikey‐sweden.com>, <digikeyegypt.com>, <digikey‐mexico.com>, <digi‐keysweden.com>, <digikey‐egypt.com>, <digi‐keymexico.com>, <digikeyswitzerland.com>, <digi‐keyegypt.com>, <digikeynetherlands.com>, <digikey‐switzerland.com>, <digikeyestonia.com>, <digi‐keynetherlands.com>, <digi‐keyswitzerland.com>, <digikey‐estonia.com>, <digikeymalaysia.com>, <digikeythailand.com>, <digi‐keyestonia.com>, <digi‐keymalaysia.com>, <digikey‐thailand.com>, <digikeyfinland.com>, <digikeyhungary.com>, <digi‐keythailand.com>, <digikey‐finland.com>, <digikey‐hungary.com>, <digikeytunisia.com>, <digi‐keyfinland.com>, <digi‐keyhungary.com>, <digikey‐tunisia.com>, <digikey‐germany.com>, <digikeyiceland.com>, <digi‐keytunisia.com>, <digikeygreece.com>, <digikey‐iceland.com>, <digikeyturkey.com>, <digikey‐greece.com>, and <digi‐keygreece.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s DIGI-KEY mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <digikey‐netherlands.com>, <digi‐keyiceland.com>, <digikey‐turkey.com>, <digikeynewzealand.com>, <digikeyinc.com>, <digi‐keyturkey.com>, <digikey‐newzealand.com>, <digikey‐inc.com>, <digikeyukraine.com>, <digi‐keynewzealand.com>, <digi‐keyinc.com>, <digikey‐ukraine.com>, <digikeynorway.com>, <digikeyindonesia.com>, <digi‐keyukraine.com>, <digikey‐norway.com>, <digikey‐indonesia.com>, <digikeyvietnam.com>, <digi‐keynorway.com>, <digi‐keyindonesia.com>, <digikey‐vietnam.com>, <digikeypakistan.com>, <digikeychile.com>, <digi‐keyvietnam.com>, <digikey‐pakistan.com>, <digikey‐chile.com>, <atlanticdigikey.com>, <digi‐keypakistan.com>, <digi‐keychile.com>, <digi‐key‐electronics.com>, <digikeyperu.com>, <digikeycolombia.com>, <digi‐key‐engineer.com>, <digikey‐peru.com>, <digikey‐colombia.com>, <digi‐key‐engineering.com>, <digi‐keyperu.com>, <digi‐keycolombia.com>, <digi‐key‐engineers.com>, <digikeyphilippines.com>, <digikeycroatia.com>, <digi‐key‐marketing.com>, <digikey‐philippines.com>, <digikey‐croatia.com>, <digi‐key‐supplychain.com>, <digi‐keyphilippines.com>, <digi‐keycroatia.com>, <digi‐key‐tech.com>, <digikeypoland.com>, <digikeydenmark.com>, <digi‐key‐university.com>, <digikey‐poland.com>, <digikey‐denmark.com>, <digi‐key‐vbd.com>, <digi‐keypoland.com>, <digi‐keydenmark.com>, <digi‐key‐volumebusiness.com>, <digikeyromania.com>, <digikeysaudi.com>, <digikeying.com>, <digikey‐romania.com>, <digikey‐saudi.com>, <digi‐keying.com>, <digi‐keyromania.com>, <digi‐keysaudi.com>, <digikeyiran.com>, <digikeyrussia.com>, <digikeysingapore.com>, <digikey‐iran.com>, <digikey‐russia.com>, <digikey‐singapore.com>, <digi‐keyiran.com>, <digi‐keyrussia.com>, <digi‐keysingapore.com>, <digikeyireland.com>, <digikey‐sample.com>, <digikeyslovenia.com>, <digikey‐ireland.com>, <digikeylatvia.com>, <digikey‐slovenia.com>, <digi‐keyireland.com>, <digikey‐latvia.com>, <digi‐keyslovenia.com>, <digikeyisrael.com>, <digi‐keylatvia.com>, <digikeysouthafrica.com>, <digikey‐israel.com>, <digikeylebanon.com>, <digikey‐southafrica.com>, <digi‐keyisrael.com>, <digikey‐lebanon.com>, <digi‐keysouthafrica.com>, <digikeykorea.com>, <digi‐keylebanon.com>, <digikey‐supplier.com>, <digikey‐korea.com>, <digikey‐malaysia.com>, <digikeysweden.com>, <digi‐keykorea.com>, <digikeymexico.com>, <digikey‐sweden.com>, <digikeyegypt.com>, <digikey‐mexico.com>, <digi‐keysweden.com>, <digikey‐egypt.com>, <digi‐keymexico.com>, <digikeyswitzerland.com>, <digi‐keyegypt.com>, <digikeynetherlands.com>, <digikey‐switzerland.com>, <digikeyestonia.com>, <digi‐keynetherlands.com>, <digi‐keyswitzerland.com>, <digikey‐estonia.com>, <digikeymalaysia.com>, <digikeythailand.com>, <digi‐keyestonia.com>, <digi‐keymalaysia.com>, <digikey‐thailand.com>, <digikeyfinland.com>, <digikeyhungary.com>, <digi‐keythailand.com>, <digikey‐finland.com>, <digikey‐hungary.com>, <digikeytunisia.com>, <digi‐keyfinland.com>, <digi‐keyhungary.com>, <digikey‐tunisia.com>, <digikey‐germany.com>, <digikeyiceland.com>, <digi‐keytunisia.com>, <digikeygreece.com>, <digikey‐iceland.com>, <digikeyturkey.com>, <digikey‐greece.com>, and <digi‐keygreece.com> domain names.
3. Respondent registered and used the <digikey‐netherlands.com>, <digi‐keyiceland.com>, <digikey‐turkey.com>, <digikeynewzealand.com>, <digikeyinc.com>, <digi‐keyturkey.com>, <digikey‐newzealand.com>, <digikey‐inc.com>, <digikeyukraine.com>, <digi‐keynewzealand.com>, <digi‐keyinc.com>, <digikey‐ukraine.com>, <digikeynorway.com>, <digikeyindonesia.com>, <digi‐keyukraine.com>, <digikey‐norway.com>, <digikey‐indonesia.com>, <digikeyvietnam.com>, <digi‐keynorway.com>, <digi‐keyindonesia.com>, <digikey‐vietnam.com>, <digikeypakistan.com>, <digikeychile.com>, <digi‐keyvietnam.com>, <digikey‐pakistan.com>, <digikey‐chile.com>, <atlanticdigikey.com>, <digi‐keypakistan.com>, <digi‐keychile.com>, <digi‐key‐electronics.com>, <digikeyperu.com>, <digikeycolombia.com>, <digi‐key‐engineer.com>, <digikey‐peru.com>, <digikey‐colombia.com>, <digi‐key‐engineering.com>, <digi‐keyperu.com>, <digi‐keycolombia.com>, <digi‐key‐engineers.com>, <digikeyphilippines.com>, <digikeycroatia.com>, <digi‐key‐marketing.com>, <digikey‐philippines.com>, <digikey‐croatia.com>, <digi‐key‐supplychain.com>, <digi‐keyphilippines.com>, <digi‐keycroatia.com>, <digi‐key‐tech.com>, <digikeypoland.com>, <digikeydenmark.com>, <digi‐key‐university.com>, <digikey‐poland.com>, <digikey‐denmark.com>, <digi‐key‐vbd.com>, <digi‐keypoland.com>, <digi‐keydenmark.com>, <digi‐key‐volumebusiness.com>, <digikeyromania.com>, <digikeysaudi.com>, <digikeying.com>, <digikey‐romania.com>, <digikey‐saudi.com>, <digi‐keying.com>, <digi‐keyromania.com>, <digi‐keysaudi.com>, <digikeyiran.com>, <digikeyrussia.com>, <digikeysingapore.com>, <digikey‐iran.com>, <digikey‐russia.com>, <digikey‐singapore.com>, <digi‐keyiran.com>, <digi‐keyrussia.com>, <digi‐keysingapore.com>, <digikeyireland.com>, <digikey‐sample.com>, <digikeyslovenia.com>, <digikey‐ireland.com>, <digikeylatvia.com>, <digikey‐slovenia.com>, <digi‐keyireland.com>, <digikey‐latvia.com>, <digi‐keyslovenia.com>, <digikeyisrael.com>, <digi‐keylatvia.com>, <digikeysouthafrica.com>, <digikey‐israel.com>, <digikeylebanon.com>, <digikey‐southafrica.com>, <digi‐keyisrael.com>, <digikey‐lebanon.com>, <digi‐keysouthafrica.com>, <digikeykorea.com>, <digi‐keylebanon.com>, <digikey‐supplier.com>, <digikey‐korea.com>, <digikey‐malaysia.com>, <digikeysweden.com>, <digi‐keykorea.com>, <digikeymexico.com>, <digikey‐sweden.com>, <digikeyegypt.com>, <digikey‐mexico.com>, <digi‐keysweden.com>, <digikey‐egypt.com>, <digi‐keymexico.com>, <digikeyswitzerland.com>, <digi‐keyegypt.com>, <digikeynetherlands.com>, <digikey‐switzerland.com>, <digikeyestonia.com>, <digi‐keynetherlands.com>, <digi‐keyswitzerland.com>, <digikey‐estonia.com>, <digikeymalaysia.com>, <digikeythailand.com>, <digi‐keyestonia.com>, <digi‐keymalaysia.com>, <digikey‐thailand.com>, <digikeyfinland.com>, <digikeyhungary.com>, <digi‐keythailand.com>, <digikey‐finland.com>, <digikey‐hungary.com>, <digikeytunisia.com>, <digi‐keyfinland.com>, <digi‐keyhungary.com>, <digikey‐tunisia.com>, <digikey‐germany.com>, <digikeyiceland.com>, <digi‐keytunisia.com>, <digikeygreece.com>, <digikey‐iceland.com>, <digikeyturkey.com>, <digikey‐greece.com>, and <digi‐keygreece.com> domain names in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Digi-Key Corporation, is a large electronic components distribution company that is headquartered in Thief River Falls, Minnesota, USA. Complainant’s total annual sales exceed $926 million per year. Complainant owns numerous trademark registrations worldwide for its DIGI-KEY mark, including those with the Chinese State Industrial Property Office (“SIPO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 1551345 issued April 7, 2011); United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") (e.g., Reg. No. 1,487,965 issued May 10, 1988); and with the European Union Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (“OHIM”) (e.g., Reg. No. 911859 issued August 17, 1998).
Respondent, Annie Brown a/k/a David Walker a/k/a Emma Lively a/k/a Emma Roberts a/k/a Jacky White a/k/a Jim Green a/k/a John Williams a/k/a Kim Gomez a/k/a Nicole Miller a/k/a Richard Wilson a/k/a Taylor Theron a/k/a Tom Roberts a/k/a Tomas Smith, registered the domain names at issue between October 27, 2010 and November 17, 2010. Respondent’s disputed domain names resolve to a website that displays a search engine and states “This site is under construction.”
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.
Preliminary Issue: Multiple Respondents
In the instant proceedings, Complainant has alleged that the entities which control the domain names at issue are effectively controlled by the same person and/or entity, which is operating under several aliases. Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”) provides that a “complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder.” The Panel in the instant proceedings finds that Complainant’s evidence indicates that a singular entity registered all of the domain names. Complainant has shown that several similarities in the WHOIS registrant information as well as the short timeline of registration for all of the domain names, and lack of Response from any of the named Respondents in this matter is evidence that the domain names are being controlled by one entity operating under several aliases. Therefore, the Panel chooses to proceed with the instant action by finding that the domain names were registered, and are being controlled by one entity.
The first component to a UDRP claim is that Complainant must be able to show that it has established rights in its asserted mark in some jurisdiction. The Panel finds that Complainant has presented sufficient evidence to show that it has rights in the DIGI-KEY mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through its trademark registrations with China’s SIPO (e.g., Reg. No. 1551345 issued April 7, 2011); USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 1,487,965 issued May 10, 1988); and with the OHIM (e.g., Reg. No. 911859 issued August 17, 1998). 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 Google, Inc. v. DktBot.org, FA 286993 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 4, 2004) (finding that the complainant had established rights in the GOOGLE mark through its holding of numerous trademark registrations around the world).
The second element under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) deals with whether the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s asserted mark. In the present situation Complainant argues that all of the domain names contain its mark in some capacity. Complainant notes that some domain names contain its DIGI-KEY mark as is, while others remove the hyphen from the mark. Further, Complainant notes that most of the domain names also contain a geographic term such as “germany” or “iceland,” while others contains various generic terms such as, “tech,” “university,” “vbd,” or “supply chain.” It is also noted that all of the domain names contain the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com,” which Complainant correctly asserts is not relevant to a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis because a gTLD is a required element in every domain name. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent’s disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s DIGI-KEY mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), where all of the domain names contain Complainant’s mark while adding geographic or generic terms and the gTLD “.com.” See Innomed Techs., Inc. v. DRP Servs., FA 221171 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 18, 2004) (finding that hyphens and top-level domains are irrelevant for purposes of the Policy); see also Am. Express Co. v. MustNeed.com, FA 257901 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 7, 2004) (finding the respondent’s <amextravel.com> domain name confusingly similar to Complainant’s AMEX mark because the “mere addition of a generic or descriptive word to a registered mark does not negate” a finding of confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)); see also Skype Ltd. & Gannett Co. v. Chan, D2004-0117 (WIPO Apr. 8, 2004) (“…it is well established that a domain name consisting of a well-known mark, combined with a geographically descriptive term or phrase, is confusingly similar to the mark.”); 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).
Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied its burden under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant has alleged that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) Complainant is required to produce a prima facie case in support of its allegations before the burden shifts to Respondent to prove it possesses rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. The Panel finds Complainant has adequately established a prima facie case. Due to Respondent’s failure to respond to these proceedings, the Panel may assume Respondent does not possess rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. See G.D. Searle v. Martin Mktg., FA 118277 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 2, 2002) (“Because Complainant’s submissions constitute a prima facie case under the Policy, the burden effectively shifts to Respondent. Respondent’s failure to respond means that Respondent has not presented any circumstances that would promote its right or legitimate interests in the subject domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).”); see also Am. Express Co. v. Fan 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.”). The Panel, however, will examine the record to determine whether Respondent possesses rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c).
Complainant argues that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names and that Respondent has not been given permission to use Complainant’s DIGI-KEY mark in any way. Complainant notes that the WHOIS information for the domain names does not indicate that Respondent is commonly known by the domain names at issue. Without the benefit of a Response by Respondent, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), based on the WHOIS information on record. 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 Reese v. Morgan, FA 917029 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 5, 2007) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <lilpunk.com> domain name as there was no evidence in the record showing that the respondent was commonly known by that domain name, including the WHOIS information as well as the complainant’s assertion that it did not authorize or license the respondent’s use of its mark in a domain name).
Complainant argues that Respondent is not using the disputed domain names in connection with 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). Complainant contends that none of the 136 domain names at issue actually resolve to an active website. Complainant has submitted screen shot evidence indicating that the domain names resolve to a website that displays a search engine feature with the statement that “This site is under construction.” Without evidence from Respondent indicating some kind of preparations to use the domain names, the Panel finds that Respondent’s failure to make an active use of the domain names at issue 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 Pharmacia & Upjohn AB v. Romero, D2000-1273 (WIPO Nov. 13, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where the respondent failed to submit a response to the complaint and had made no use of the domain name in question); see also Thermo Electron Corp. v. Xu, FA 713851 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 12, 2006) (finding that the respondent’s non-use of the disputed domain names demonstrates that the respondent is not using the disputed domain names for 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)).
Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied its burden under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
First, the Panel finds that within a short period of time Respondent registered 136 domain names containing Complainant’s mark. Previous panels have determined that where a respondent registers many domain names containing a complainant’s mark within a short period of time, that such registrations constitute bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). See Harcourt, Inc. v. Fadness, FA 95247 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 8, 2000) (finding that one instance of registration of several infringing domain names satisfies the burden imposed by the Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii)); see also EPA European Pressphoto Agency B.V. v. Wilson, D2004-1012 (WIPO Feb. 9, 2005) (finding that the respondent’s registration of the <epa-photo.com>, <epaphoto.com> and <epaphotos.com> domain names was sufficient to constitute a pattern pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii)). Complainant in the present proceeding has submitted evidence to show that, aside from one domain name, Respondent registered the domain names at issue within one week of each other, with multiple registrations of domains per day. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent’s registration and use of the domain names at issue are evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii).
Complainant argues, and has submitted evidence to show that Respondent is not making an active use of any of the domain names. Complainant contends that such non-use is itself evidence of bad faith. The Panel in this instance agrees and finds that Respondent’s failure to make an active use of the domain names in over seven months constitutes bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Am. Broad. Cos., Inc. v. Sech, FA 893427 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 28, 2007) (concluding that the respondent’s failure to make active use of its domain name in the three months after its registration indicated that the respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith); see also Pirelli & C. S.p.A. v. Tabriz, FA 921798 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 12, 2007) (holding that non-use of a confusingly similar domain name for over seven months constitutes bad faith registration and use); see also DCI S.A. v. Link Commercial Corp., D2000-1232 (WIPO Dec. 7, 2000) (concluding that the respondent’s [failure to make an active use] of the domain name satisfies the requirement of ¶ 4(a)(iii) of the Policy).
Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied its burden under 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 <digikey‐netherlands.com>, <digi‐keyiceland.com>, <digikey‐turkey.com>, <digikeynewzealand.com>, <digikeyinc.com>, <digi‐keyturkey.com>, <digikey‐newzealand.com>, <digikey‐inc.com>, <digikeyukraine.com>, <digi‐keynewzealand.com>, <digi‐keyinc.com>, <digikey‐ukraine.com>, <digikeynorway.com>, <digikeyindonesia.com>, <digi‐keyukraine.com>, <digikey‐norway.com>, <digikey‐indonesia.com>, <digikeyvietnam.com>, <digi‐keynorway.com>, <digi‐keyindonesia.com>, <digikey‐vietnam.com>, <digikeypakistan.com>, <digikeychile.com>, <digi‐keyvietnam.com>, <digikey‐pakistan.com>, <digikey‐chile.com>, <atlanticdigikey.com>, <digi‐keypakistan.com>, <digi‐keychile.com>, <digi‐key‐electronics.com>, <digikeyperu.com>, <digikeycolombia.com>, <digi‐key‐engineer.com>, <digikey‐peru.com>, <digikey‐colombia.com>, <digi‐key‐engineering.com>, <digi‐keyperu.com>, <digi‐keycolombia.com>, <digi‐key‐engineers.com>, <digikeyphilippines.com>, <digikeycroatia.com>, <digi‐key‐marketing.com>, <digikey‐philippines.com>, <digikey‐croatia.com>, <digi‐key‐supplychain.com>, <digi‐keyphilippines.com>, <digi‐keycroatia.com>, <digi‐key‐tech.com>, <digikeypoland.com>, <digikeydenmark.com>, <digi‐key‐university.com>, <digikey‐poland.com>, <digikey‐denmark.com>, <digi‐key‐vbd.com>, <digi‐keypoland.com>, <digi‐keydenmark.com>, <digi‐key‐volumebusiness.com>, <digikeyromania.com>, <digikeysaudi.com>, <digikeying.com>, <digikey‐romania.com>, <digikey‐saudi.com>, <digi‐keying.com>, <digi‐keyromania.com>, <digi‐keysaudi.com>, <digikeyiran.com>, <digikeyrussia.com>, <digikeysingapore.com>, <digikey‐iran.com>, <digikey‐russia.com>, <digikey‐singapore.com>, <digi‐keyiran.com>, <digi‐keyrussia.com>, <digi‐keysingapore.com>, <digikeyireland.com>, <digikey‐sample.com>, <digikeyslovenia.com>, <digikey‐ireland.com>, <digikeylatvia.com>, <digikey‐slovenia.com>, <digi‐keyireland.com>, <digikey‐latvia.com>, <digi‐keyslovenia.com>, <digikeyisrael.com>, <digi‐keylatvia.com>, <digikeysouthafrica.com>, <digikey‐israel.com>, <digikeylebanon.com>, <digikey‐southafrica.com>, <digi‐keyisrael.com>, <digikey‐lebanon.com>, <digi‐keysouthafrica.com>, <digikeykorea.com>, <digi‐keylebanon.com>, <digikey‐supplier.com>, <digikey‐korea.com>, <digikey‐malaysia.com>, <digikeysweden.com>, <digi‐keykorea.com>, <digikeymexico.com>, <digikey‐sweden.com>, <digikeyegypt.com>, <digikey‐mexico.com>, <digi‐keysweden.com>, <digikey‐egypt.com>, <digi‐keymexico.com>, <digikeyswitzerland.com>, <digi‐keyegypt.com>, <digikeynetherlands.com>, <digikey‐switzerland.com>, <digikeyestonia.com>, <digi‐keynetherlands.com>, <digi‐keyswitzerland.com>, <digikey‐estonia.com>, <digikeymalaysia.com>, <digikeythailand.com>, <digi‐keyestonia.com>, <digi‐keymalaysia.com>, <digikey‐thailand.com>, <digikeyfinland.com>, <digikeyhungary.com>, <digi‐keythailand.com>, <digikey‐finland.com>, <digikey‐hungary.com>, <digikeytunisia.com>, <digi‐keyfinland.com>, <digi‐keyhungary.com>, <digikey‐tunisia.com>, <digikey‐germany.com>, <digikeyiceland.com>, <digi‐keytunisia.com>, <digikeygreece.com>, <digikey‐iceland.com>, <digikeyturkey.com>, <digikey‐greece.com>, and <digi‐keygreece.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
John J. Upchurch, Panelist
Dated: July 6, 2011
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page