Alticor Inc. v. LIPING DU / Ms Du
Claim Number: FA1111001417334
Complainant is Alticor Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by R. Scott Keller of Warner Norcross & Judd LLP, Michigan, USA. Respondent is LIPING DU / Ms Du (“Respondent”), China.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <amwaydu.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.
Honorable Karl V. Fink (Ret.) 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 English and Chinese.
On November 30, 2011, Xin Net Technology Corporation confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <amwaydu.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 2, 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 22, 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@amwaydu.com. Also on December 2, 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 January 3, 2012, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Honorable Karl V. Fink (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.
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 <amwaydu.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s AMWAY mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <amwaydu.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <amwaydu.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Alticor Inc., is a large direct selling corporation that was founded in 1959. Complainant markets, produces, and sells cosmetics, skin care products, hair care products, dietary food supplements, nutritional foods and other products under the AMWAY mark. Complainant owns the AMWAY mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") (e.g., Reg. No. 707,656 registered November 29, 1960).
Respondent, LIPING DU / Ms Du, registered the <amwaydu.com> domain name on September 19, 2008. Respondent’s domain name resolves to a website selling Complainant’s goods without authorization.
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 satisfied its burden under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) by providing evidence of its trademark registrations with the USPTO for its AMWAY mark (e.g., Reg. No. 707,656 registered November 29, 1960). The Panel finds that it does not matter that Complainant has established rights through its trademark registration with the USPTO while Respondent resides in China. See 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).
Complainant argues that the <amwaydu.com> domain name is “unquestionably confusingly similar to Complainant’s famous AMWAY mark.” Complainant asserts that the domain name contains its entire mark while adding the registrant’s surname, “du,” and the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.” The Panel finds that the <amwaydu.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s AMWAY mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See 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); 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).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) is satisfied.
Complainant alleges that Respondent does not possess any rights and legitimate interests in the <amwaydu.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 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 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 <amwaydu.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.”); see also Am. Online, Inc. v. AOL Int'l, D2000-0654 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where the respondent fails to respond). 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 <amwaydu.com> domain name, nor has Complainant given Respondent permission to use Complainant’s mark. The WHOIS information identifies “LIPING DU / Ms Du” as the registrant of the <amwaydu.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 contends, and submits evidence to show, that Respondent’s domain name resolves to a commercial website that advertises and sells Complainant’s AMWAY products without authorization. Complainant contends that Respondent was previously an independent business owner but that it was never authorized to use the AMWAY mark in a domain name or otherwise in its capacity as such. The Panel finds that Respondent’s use of Complainant’s mark for a commercial website selling Complainant’s goods without authorization or license to do so 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 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.”); see also Chanel, Inc. v. Cologne Zone, D2000-1809 (WIPO Feb. 22, 2001) (finding that use of the complainant’s mark to sell the complainant’s perfume, as well as other brands of perfume, is not bona fide use).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) is satisfied.
Complainant has offered arguments and evidence indicating that Respondent is using the disputed domain name to offer Complainant’s products without authorization. The Panel infers that such use of the domain name disrupts Complainant’s business and its ability to authorize dealers to sell its products. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the domain name in bad faith pursuant to 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).”).
Further, Complainant asserts that Respondent is using the domain name to operate a commercial website that advertises and sells AMWAY products without Complainant’s authorization. The Panel finds that Respondent’s use of Complainant’s mark to cause confusion as to Complainant’s affiliation with such a website for Respondent’s own profit is evidence of bad faith registration and use as proposed by Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Fanuc Ltd v. Mach. Control Servs., FA 93667 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 13, 2000) (finding that the respondent violated Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark by using a domain name identical to the complainant’s mark to sell the complainant’s products); see also Fossil Inc. v. NAS, FA 92525 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 23, 2000) (finding that the respondent acted in bad faith by registering the <fossilwatch.com> domain name and using it to sell various watch brands where the respondent was not authorized to sell the complainant’s goods).
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 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). Complainant has alleged that Respondent was once an independent business owner selling AMWAY products. The resolving website sells Complainant’s AMWAY products. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant and its rights in the mark and registered the 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 <amwaydu.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Honorable Karl V. Fink (Ret.), Panelist
Dated: January 4, 2012
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page