Alticor Inc. v. Wu Peng
Claim Number: FA1111001417297
Complainant is Alticor Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by R. Scott Keller of Warner Norcross & Judd LLP, Michigan, USA. Respondent is Wu Peng (“Respondent”), China.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <amwaysky.com>, registered with XIN NET TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION.
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.
Bruce E. Meyerson as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on November 28, 2011; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on November 29, 2011. The Complaint was submitted in both Chinese and English.
On November 30, 2011, XIN NET TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <amwaysky.com> domain name is registered with XIN NET TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. XIN NET TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION has verified that Respondent is bound by the XIN NET TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION 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 December 1, 2011, the Forum served the Chinese language Complaint and all Annexes, including a Chinese language Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of December 21, 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@amwaysky.com. Also on December 1, 2011, the Chinese language 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 December 30, 2011, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Bruce E. Meyerson 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.
Pursuant to Rule 11(a) the Panel determines that the language requirement has been satisfied through the Chinese language Complaint and Commencement Notification and, absent a Response, determines that the remainder of the proceedings may be conducted in English.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant makes the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s <amwaysky.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s AMWAY mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <amwaysky.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <amwaysky.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Alticor Inc., claims rights in the AMWAY mark based on its multiple registrations of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g. Reg. No. 707,656 registered November 29, 1960). Complainant uses the AMWAY mark in connection with the operation of a direct selling company, offering personal care, nutrition and wellness, home care, home living, and commercial products.
Respondent, Wu Peng, registered the disputed domain name on September 4, 2006. Respondent uses the disputed domain name to offer information about Complainant’s products, as well as to offer Complainant’s products for sale.
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 claims rights in the AMWAY mark based on its registrations of the mark with the USPTO (e.g. Reg. No. 707,656 registered November 29, 1960). The Panel holds that Complainant’s registration of the AMWAY mark with the USPTO is sufficient to confer rights in the mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Thermo Electron Corp. v. Xu, FA 713851 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 12, 2006) (finding that the complainants had established rights in marks where the marks were registered with a trademark authority); 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).
Complainant urges that Respondent’s <amwaysky.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s AMWAY mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). The disputed domain name includes Complainant’s mark, the generic term “sky,” and the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.” Adding a generic term like “sky” is not sufficient to distinguish the disputed domain name from Complainant’s mark. 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). Additionally, the inclusion of a gTLD has no effect on the determination of whether a domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark. See Rollerblade, Inc. v. McCrady, D2000-0429 (WIPO June 25, 2000) (finding that the top level of the domain name such as “.net” or “.com” does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar). Therefore, the Panel holds that Respondent’s disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Complainant alleges that Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <amwaysky.com> domain name. The burden shifts to Respondent to prove it does have rights or legitimate interests when Complainant makes a prima facie case in support of its allegations under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). The Panel finds Complainant made a sufficient prima facie case. Respondent’s failure to respond to the Complaint allows the Panel to infer that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <amwaysky.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 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 Desotec N.V. v. Jacobi Carbons AB, D2000-1398 (WIPO Dec. 21, 2000) (finding that failing to respond allows a presumption that the complainant’s allegations are true unless clearly contradicted by the evidence).
Complainant alleges that Respondent is not commonly known by the <amwaysky.com> domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). Complainant also claims that Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant’s business in any way and has not been licensed by Complainant to use the AMWAY mark. The WHOIS information identifies the domain name registrant as “Wu Peng.” The Panel finds no similarity to the <amwaysky.com> domain name. Respondent has failed to submit any evidence that it is commonly known as the disputed domain name. Absent any such evidence, the Panel must conclude that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name for the purposes of 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 Ian Schrager Hotels, L.L.C. v. Taylor, FA 173369 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 25, 2003) (finding that without demonstrable evidence to support the assertion that a respondent is commonly known by a domain name, the assertion must be rejected).
Complainant further alleges that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to sell and provide information about Complainant’s products, is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). A respondent’s use of a confusingly similar domain name to divert Internet users to its own website of this sort does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See 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); see also Caterpillar Inc. v. Huth, FA 169056 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 2, 2003) (“Respondent lacks rights in the disputed domain names because Respondent competes with Complainant by selling Complainant's used parts without a license from Complainant to do so.”). The Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name in connection with the sale of Complainant’s goods demonstrates registration and use of the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). Respondent’s operation at a confusingly similar domain name increases the likelihood that visitors to Respondent’s website will have originally intended to visit a website operated by Complainant. When these visitors purchase products from Respondent’s site, it comes at the direct cost of Complainant’s business, which would have earned the sale but for the existence of Respondent’s site. In light of this, the Panel finds that Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith disruption 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 G.D. Searle & Co. v. Celebrex Cox-2 Vioxx.com, FA 124508 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 16, 2002) (“Unauthorized use of Complainant’s CELEBREX mark to sell Complainant’s products represents bad faith use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).”).
Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name also suggests bad faith attraction for commercial gain pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). Respondent’s selection of a confusingly similar domain name demonstrates intent to deceive or mislead consumers as to Complainant’s affiliation with the site. Respondent seeks to benefit from the goodwill that Complainant’s mark has garnered, hoping that its use of Complainant’s mark will result in increased sales. Previous panels have found bad faith where a Respondent attempts to commercially benefit from creating this type of confusion. 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 Compaq Info. Techs. Group, L.P. v. Waterlooplein Ltd., FA 109718 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 29, 2002) (finding that the respondent’s use of the <compaq-broker.com> domain name to sell the complainant’s products “creates a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's COMPAQ mark as to the source, sponsorship, or affiliation of the website and constituted bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)”). The Panel holds that Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name exhibits bad faith attraction for commercial gain pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
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 AMWAY mark. While constructive notice has not been generally 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 Complainant has proven that Respondent has had actual knowledge of Complainant's mark and, therefore, that Respondent has registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith 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 <amwaysky.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Bruce E. Meyerson, Panelist
Dated: January 9, 2012
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page