PFIP, LLC v. corporateinfocom pvt ltd
Claim Number: FA1111001415787
Complainant is PFIP, LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Teresa C. Tucker of Grossman, Tucker, Perreault & Pfleger PLLC, New Hampshire, USA. Respondent is corporateinfocom pvt ltd (“Respondent”), India.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <planetfitnesszone.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, Inc.
The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and, to the best of his knowledge, has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.) as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on November 16, 2011; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on November 16, 2011.
On November 16, 2011, GoDaddy.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <planetfitnesszone.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 November 17, 2011, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of December 7, 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@planetfitnesszone.com. Also on November 17, 2011, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail 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 December 16, 2011, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed the Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (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 <planetfitnesszone.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s PLANET FITNESS mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <planetfitnesszone.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <planetfitnesszone.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, PFIP, LLC, operates fitness and health clubs throughout the United States under its PLANET FITNESS mark. Complainant owns multiple trademark registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) for its PLANET FITNESS mark (e.g., Reg. No. 2,438,677 registered March 27, 2001).
Respondent, corporateinfocom pvt ltd, registered the <planetfitnesszone.com> domain name June 12, 2011. The disputed domain name resolves to a website that promotes and markets fitness products in competition with Complainant’s products and services.
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 presents evidence of its trademark registrations with the USPTO for its PLANET FITNESS mark (e.g., Reg. No. 2,438,677 registered March 27, 2001). Even though Respondent resides or operates in India and not the United States, the Panel determines that this evidence is sufficient to establish rights in its PLANET FITNESS mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). 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 Microsoft Corp. v. Burkes, FA 652743 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 17, 2006) (“Complainant has established rights in the MICROSOFT mark through registration of the mark with the USPTO.”); see also Williams-Sonoma, Inc. v. Fees, FA 937704 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 25, 2007) (finding that it is irrelevant whether the complainant has registered its trademark in the country of the respondent’s residence).
Respondent’s <planetfitnesszone.com> domain name includes Complainant’s entire PLANET FITNESS mark, absent the space. In the disputed domain name, Respondent adds the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com” and the descriptive term “zone,” which refers to Complainant’s fitness instruction and training, to Complainant’s mark. The Panel finds that these alterations fail to remove the disputed domain names from the realm of confusing similarity. See Arthur Guinness Son & Co. (Dublin) Ltd. v. Healy/BOSTH, D2001-0026 (WIPO Mar. 23, 2001) (finding confusing similarity where the domain name in dispute contains the identical mark of the complainant combined with a generic word or term); see also Am. Online, Inc. v. Shanghaihangwei Packing Material Co. Ltd., D2001-0443 (WIPO May 22, 2001) (finding the <ouricq.com> domain name to be confusingly similar to the complainant’s ICQ mark); see also Bond & Co. Jewelers, Inc. v. Tex. Int’l Prop. Assocs., FA 937650 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 30, 2007) (finding that the elimination of spaces between terms and the addition of a gTLD do not establish distinctiveness from the complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)). Thus, the Panel finds that Respondent’s <planetfitnesszone.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s PLANET FITNESS mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
The Panel finds Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) is satisfied.
Complainant alleges that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <planetfitnesszone.com> domain name. Previous panels have found that when a complainant makes a prima facie case in support of its allegations, the burden shifts to the respondent to prove that it does have rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). The Panel finds Complainant has made a prima facie case. Due to Respondent’s failure to respond to the Complaint, the Panel may assume that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <planetfitnesszone.com> domain name. However, the Panel will examine the record to determine whether Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c). See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 18, 2006) (holding that the complainant must first make a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) before the burden shifts to the respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in a domain name); see also Vanguard Group, Inc. v. Collazo, FA 349074 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 1, 2004) (finding that because the respondent failed to submit a Response, “Complainant’s submission has gone unopposed and its arguments undisputed. In the absence of a Response, the Panel accepts as true all reasonable allegations . . . unless clearly contradicted by the evidence.”).
Respondent did not respond to this case and does not provide any evidence that it is commonly known by the <planetfitnesszone.com> domain name. To the contrary, the WHOIS information lists “corporateinfocom pvt ltd” as the registrant of the disputed domain name, and Complainant did not authorize Respondent to use Complainant’s PLANET FITNESS mark. Based on this evidence, the Panel concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by the <planetfitnesszone.com> domain name under 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); 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).
Respondent’s <planetfitnesszone.com> domain name resolves to a website that offers and promotes competing fitness products. Respondent likely profits from this use. The Panel concludes that Respondent’s competing use of the disputed domain name is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Florists’ Transworld Delivery v. Malek, FA 676433 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 6, 2006) (holding that the respondent’s use of the <ftdflowers4less.com> domain name to sell flowers in competition with the complainant did not give rise to any legitimate interest in the domain name); see also Computerized Sec. Sys., Inc. v. Hu, FA 157321 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 23, 2003) (“Respondent’s appropriation of [Complainant’s] SAFLOK mark to market products that compete with Complainant’s goods does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods and services.”).
The Panel finds Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) is satisfied.
Respondent’s competing use of the <planetfitnesszone.com> domain name disrupts Complainant’s business by redirecting potential customers of Complainant to Respondent’s competing fitness products. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the <planetfitnesszone.com> domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See DatingDirect.com Ltd. v. Aston, FA 593977 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 28, 2005) (“Respondent is appropriating Complainant’s mark to divert Complainant’s customers to Respondent’s competing business. The Panel finds this diversion is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).”); see also Marriott Int’l, Inc. v. MCM Tours, Inc., FA 444510 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 6, 2005) (“The Respondent is a travel agency and thus operates in the same business as the Complainant. The parties can therefore be considered as competitors. The Panel thus finds that the Respondent registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor, which constitutes evidence of registration and use in bad faith under Policy 4(b)(iii).”).
The Panel further infers that Respondent commercially benefits from its registration and use of the disputed domain names to offer competing fitness products. Respondent registered the confusingly similar <planetfitnesszone.com> domain name for this purpose. As Internet users will likely become confused as to Complainant’s affiliation with the disputed domain name and Respondent seeks to profit from this confusion, the Panel finds that Respondent’s registration and use of the <planetfitnesszone.com> domain name is in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Scholastic Inc. v. Applied Software Solutions, Inc., D2000-1629 (WIPO Mar. 15, 2001) (finding bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) because the respondent initially used the disputed domain name to sell educational services that targeted the complainant’s market); see also Luck's Music Library v. Stellar Artist Mgmt., FA 95650 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 30, 2000) (finding that the respondent engaged in bad faith use and registration by using domain names that were identical or confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark to redirect users to a website that offered services similar to those offered by the complainant).
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 PLANET FITNESS mark. While constructive notice has not been generally held to suffice for a finding of bad faith registration and use, the Panel nonetheless finds that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) because the Panel finds that Respondent 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 Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) is 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 <planetfitnesszone.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.), Panelist
Dated: December 30, 2011
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page