Homer TLC, Inc. v. Private Whois myhomedepotcom.com
Claim Number: FA1109001409550
Complainant is Homer TLC, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Brandon M. Ress of Fulbright & Jaworski L.L.P., Texas, USA. Respondent is Private Whois myhomedepotcom.com (“Respondent”), Bahamas.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <myhomedepotcom.com>, registered with Internet.bs Corp.
The undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his or her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Honorable Paul A. Dorf (Ret.) as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on September 29, 2011; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on September 29, 2011.
On September 29, 2011, Internet.bs Corp. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <myhomedepotcom.com> domain name is registered with Internet.bs Corp. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Internet.bs Corp. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Internet.bs Corp. 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 September 29, 2011, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of October 19, 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@myhomedepotcom.com. Also on September 29, 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 October 25, 2011, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Honorable Paul A. Dorf (Ret.) as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the National Arbitration Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the National Arbitration Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant makes the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s <myhomedepotcom.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s HOME DEPOT mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <myhomedepotcom.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <myhomedepotcom.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Homer TLC, Inc., is the owner of the HOME DEPOT marks that are used in relation to the HOME DEPOT home improvement retail stores. Complainant operates more than 2,200 retail stores in the United States, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Canada, Mexico, and China. Complainant presents the following applicable trademark registrations that it owns with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO"):
THE HOME DEPOT Reg. No. 1,152,625 registered April 28, 1981
HOME DEPOT Reg. No. 2,314,081 registered February 1, 2000
Respondent, Private Whois myhomedepotcom.com, registered the <myhomedepotcom.com> domain name on March 24, 2011. Respondent’s disputed domain name resolves to a website that appears to be a blog posting issued by Complainant that features information on Complainant’s online shipping and returns policies, among other information about Complainant.
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable."
In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(e), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations and inferences set forth in the Complaint as true unless the evidence is clearly contradictory. See Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 31, 2000) (holding that the respondent’s failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of the complaint to be deemed true); see also Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009 (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000) (“In the absence of a response, it is appropriate to accept as true all allegations of the Complaint.”).
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred:
(1) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
(2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
Complainant asserts that it has rights in the THE HOME DEPOT (Reg. No. 1,152,625 registered April 28, 1981) and HOME DEPOT marks (Reg. No. 2,314,081 registered February 1, 2000), that it has registered with the USPTO. The Panel finds that such evidence is sufficient for Complainant to establish rights in its mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), regardless of Respondent’s location. See Expedia, Inc. v. Tan, FA 991075 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 29, 2007) (“As the [complainant’s] mark is registered with the USPTO, [the] complainant has met the requirements of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”); see also Koninklijke KPN N.V. v. Telepathy Inc., D2001-0217 (WIPO May 7, 2001) (finding that the Policy does not require that the mark be registered in the country in which the respondent operates; therefore it is sufficient that the complainant can demonstrate a mark in some jurisdiction).
Complainant argues that Respondent’s <myhomedepotcom.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s HOME DEPOT mark. Complainant alleges that the domain name merely removes the space between the terms of the mark while adding the generic terms “my” and “com” as well as the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com”. The Panel finds that such changes do not adequately distinguish the domain name from Complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See U.S. News & World Report, Inc. v. Zhongqi, FA 917070 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 9, 2007) (“Elimination of punctuation and the space between the words of Complainant’s mark, as well as the addition of a gTLD does not sufficiently distinguish the disputed domain name from the mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”); see also NIIT Ltd. v. Parthasarathy Venkatram, D2000-0497 (WIPO Aug. 4, 2000) (finding that the “domain name ‘myniit.com,’ which incorporates the word NIIT as a prominent part thereof, is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade name and trademark NIIT”); 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)). The Panel thus concludes that Respondent’s <myhomedepotcom.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s HOME DEPOT mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
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 <myhomedepotcom.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 Swedish Match UK Ltd. v. Admin, Domain, FA 873137 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 13, 2007) (finding that once a prima facie case has been established by the complainant, the burden then shifts to the respondent to demonstrate its rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)); 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 <myhomedepotcom.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.”). 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).
Complaint argues that Respondent is neither commonly known by the <myhomedepotcom.com> domain name, nor has Complainant given Respondent permission to use Complainant’s mark. The WHOIS information identifies “Private Whois myhomedepotcom.com” as the registrant of the <myhomedepotcom.com> domain name, and there is no further evidence on record that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. The Panel finds that without evidence of Respondent being commonly known by the disputed domain name, Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See 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); 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 alleges that Respondent is using the disputed domain name to offer various third-party links to other websites. Complainant argues that while it appears as though Respondent is using the domain name to offer blog postings about Complainant’s company, the real reason for registering the domain name involves the display of click-through third-party links. Complainant argues that the domain name attracts Internet users to the resolving website so that Respondent can commercially gain when users click on one of the links located on the website. However, the Panel does not find such usage present in Complainant’s submitted evidence. The Panel does agree, however, that Respondent’s current use of the domain name, which contains content that appears to be coming from Complainant, 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 Seiko Kabushiki Kaisha v. CS into Tech, FA 198795 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 6, 2003) (“Diverting customers, who are looking for products relating to the famous SEIKO mark, to a website unrelated to the mark is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor does it represent a noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”); see also Bank of Am. Corp. v. Nw. Free Cmty. Access, FA 180704 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 30, 2003) (“Respondent’s demonstrated intent to divert Internet users seeking Complainant’s website to a website of Respondent and for Respondent’s benefit is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and it is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
The Panel notes that the examples of bad faith registration and use prescribed in Policy ¶ 4(b) are intended to be illustrative and not exhaustive. See Digi Int’l Inc. v. DDI Sys., FA 124506 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 24, 2002) (determining that Policy ¶ 4(b) sets forth certain circumstances, without limitation, that shall be evidence of registration and use of a domain name in bad faith) Thus, the Panel may find bad faith beyond the parameters of Policy ¶ 4(b). See CBS Broad., Inc. v. LA-Twilight-Zone, D2000-0397 (WIPO June 19, 2000) (“[T]he Policy expressly recognizes that other circumstances can be evidence that a domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith”).
Complainant has argued that Respondent’s disputed domain name is operating with the intention of creating commercial gain through the use of third-party click-through links. Complainant contends that the resolving website first presents itself as a blog website that appears to be coming from Complainant but that the real goal of the website is to place many third-party link advertisements throughout the website in order to collect fees. The Panel finds that such future use is not present in the evidence provided by Complainant. However, the Panel does find that Respondent’s appropriation of Complainant’s mark to offer commentary about Complainant’s policies as if it were Complainant is evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Monsanto Co. v. Decepticons, FA 101536 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 18, 2001) (finding that the respondent's use of <monsantos.com> to misrepresent itself as the complainant and to provide misleading information to the public supported a finding of bad faith); see also Household Int’l, Inc. v. Cyntom Enter., FA 95784 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 7, 2000) (“Just as the employment of a well-known business name for no particularly good reason undermines any claim to legitimate interest, so it may also support an inference of a bad-faith attempt to use the name to harass or exploit its legitimate owner . . . Respondent, if [it] ever was serious in the registration of this domain name, must have relied on the good chance he would attract [Complainant’s] customers.”).
Complainant also correctly argues that Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant and its rights in the HOME DEPOT mark. Respondent is offering information about Complainant’s business, shipping, and returns policies. Therefore, the Panel presumes that Respondent has actual knowledge of Complainant. By registering and using the domain name with such knowledge Respondent has acted in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Digi Int’l v. DDI Sys., FA 124506 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 24, 2002) (“[T]here is a legal presumption of bad faith, when Respondent reasonably should have been aware of Complainant’s trademarks, actually or constructively.”); see also Deep Foods, Inc. v. Jamruke, LLC, FA 648190 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 10, 2006) (stating that while mere constructive knowledge is insufficient to support a finding of bad faith, where the circumstances indicate that the respondent had actual knowledge of the complainant’s mark when it registered the domain name, panels can find bad faith).
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 <myhomedepotcom.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Honorable Paul A. Dorf (Ret.), Panelist
Dated: November 1, 2011
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page