H-D Michigan, LLC v. Bijin Zheng
Claim Number: FA1110001412105
Complainant is H-D Michigan, LLC (“Complainant”), represented by David M. Kelly of Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, L.L.P., Washington, D.C., USA. Respondent is Bijin Zheng (“Respondent”), China.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <hdjackets.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, Inc.
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.
Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on October 19, 2011; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on October 19, 2011.
On October 19, 2011, GoDaddy.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <hdjackets.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 October 20, 2011, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of November 9, 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@hdjackets.com. Also on October 20, 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 November 16, 2011, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Sandra J. Franklin 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 a response from Respondent.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant makes the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s <hdjackets.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s HD mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <hdjackets.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <hdjackets.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, H-D Michigan, LLC, claims rights in the HD mark based on its registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 2,315,877 registered February 8, 2000). Complainant uses the mark in connection with the manufacture and sale of motorcycles, motorcycle parts and accessories, and motorcycle clothing.
Respondent, Bijin Zheng, registered the disputed domain name on August 18, 2011. The disputed domain name resolves to a website offering counterfeit versions of Complainant’s products.
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 the HD mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) based on its registration of the mark with the USPTO. Previous panels have agreed that registration of a mark with the USPTO establishes rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Paisley Park Enters. v. Lawson, FA 384834 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 1, 2005) (finding that the complainant had established rights in the PAISLEY PARK mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through registration of the mark with the USPTO); see also Reebok Int’l Ltd. v. Santos, FA 565685 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 21, 2005) (finding trademark registration with the USPTO was adequate to establish rights pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)). This is true even despite the fact that Complainant has registered the mark in a country other than that in which Respondent operates. See Renaissance Hotel Holdings, Inc. v. Renaissance Cochin, FA 932344 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 23, 2007) (finding that it does not matter whether the complainant has registered its trademark in the country in which the respondent resides, only that it can establish rights in some jurisdiction).
The disputed domain name wholly includes Complainant’s mark, adding only the descriptive term “jackets” and the generic top-level domain “gTLD” “.com”. The term “jackets” is a clear reference to Complainant’s business, which does not distinguish the disputed domain name from Complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), nor does the addition of a gTDL. See Space Imaging LLC v. Brownell, AF-0298 (eResolution Sept. 22, 2000) (finding confusing similarity where the respondent’s domain name combines the complainant’s mark with a generic term that has an obvious relationship to the complainant’s business). Past panels have also agreed that the affixation of a gTLD cannot distinguish a disputed domain name. See Jerry Damson, Inc. v. Tex. Int’l Prop. Assocs., FA 916991 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 10, 2007) (“The mere addition of a generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com” does not serve to adequately distinguish the Domain Name from the mark.”). The Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
The Panel finds that the requirements of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) have been satisfied.
It is now well-established that Complainant shoulders the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case. Once this burden has been satisfied, as is the case here, the burden then shifts to Respondent to refute Complainant’s claims. 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)). Some panels have construed a Respondent’s failure to submit a Response as evidence that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. See 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.”). The Panel will nevertheless review the record against the Policy ¶ 4(c) factors to make an independent determination on Respondent’s rights and legitimate interests.
Complainant alleges that Respondent is not commonly known by the <hdjackets.com> domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). The relevant WHOIS information identifies the domain name registrant as “Bijin Zheng,” which the Panel finds bears no resemblance to the disputed domain name. 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). Complainant also indicates that it did not authorize Respondent to register the confusingly similar domain name. Without a Response, and absent any contrary evidence in the record, the Panel must find that Respondent is not commonly known by the <hdjackets.com> domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Braun Corp. v. Loney, FA 699652 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 7, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain names where the WHOIS information, as well as all other information in the record, gave no indication that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain names, and the complainant had not authorized the respondent to register a domain name containing its registered mark).
Complainant further alleges that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name does not coincide 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). The disputed domain name resolves to a website offering counterfeit versions of Complainant’s products, clearly not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Inversiones HP Milenium C.A., FA 105775 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 12, 2002) (“Respondent’s use of the confusingly similar domain name [<hpmilenium.com>] to sell counterfeit versions of Complainant’s [HP] products is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i).”); see also Pitney Bowes Inc. v. Ostanik, D2000-1611 (WIPO Jan. 24, 2001) (finding no rights or legitimate interests in the <pitneybowe.com> domain name where the respondent purports to resell original Pitney Bowes equipment on its website, as well as goods of other competitors of the complainant).
The Panel finds that the requirements of Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) have been satisfied.
Respondent’s sale of counterfeit versions of Complainant’s goods constitutes bad faith disruption of Complainant’s business under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). Respondent’s operation at a confusingly similar domain name will likely lead some Internet users to visit Respondent’s site, when they intended to visit Complainant’s. Many of these visitors will purchase products from Respondent instead of Complainant. The Panel holds that this misdirection constitutes bad faith disruption of Complainant’s business under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See Fossil, Inc. v. NAS, FA 92525 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 23, 2000) (transferring the <fossilwatch.com> domain name from the respondent, a watch dealer not otherwise authorized to sell the complainant’s goods, to the complainant); see also Caterpillar Inc. v. Vine, FA 97097 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 22, 2001) (“Respondent registered each of the disputed domain names in order to gain customers and to disrupt Complainant's business of authorizing dealers to sell its CATERPILLAR equipment.”).
Respondent’s registration and use of the <hdjackets.com> domain name demonstrates bad faith attraction for commercial gain under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). Through the use of a confusingly similar domain name, Respondent deceives consumers into mistakenly believing that Respondent is affiliated with Complainant’s business in some way. Respondent uses this confusion to drive Internet traffic to its site, where it hopes to realize financial gain through the sale of counterfeit versions of Complainant’s products. The Panel finds that this business model constitutes bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Ali, FA 353151 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 13, 2004) (“Respondent [used “HP” in its domain name] to benefit from the goodwill associated with Complainant’s HP marks and us[ed] the <hpdubai.com> domain name, in part, to provide products similar to those of Complainant. Respondent’s practice of diversion, motivated by commercial gain, constitutes bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).”); see also Utensilerie Assoc. S.p.A. v. C & M, D2003-0159 (WIPO Apr. 22, 2003) (“The contents of the website, offering Usag products, together with the domain name may create the (incorrect) impression that Respondent is either the exclusive distributor or a subsidiary of Complainant, or at the very least that Complainant has approved its use of the domain name.”).
Complainant also contends that Respondent could not have registered and used the disputed domain name without actual or constructive knowledge of Complainant and its rights in the HD mark. While constructive notice has not generally been held to suffice for a finding of bad faith registration and use, the Panel may nonetheless find that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) if Respondent is found to have had actual notice of Complainant’s trademark rights. See 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); see also Yahoo! Inc. v. Butler, FA 744444 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 17, 2006) (finding bad faith where the respondent was “well-aware” of the complainant’s YAHOO! mark at the time of registration). The Panel finds that Respondent offers counterfeit goods of Complainant and thus had actual knowledge of Complainant's mark and therefore registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith 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 <hdjackets.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist
Dated: November 28, 2011
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page