Implus Footcare, LLC v. Yaroslav Sovin
Claim Number: FA1203001437210
Complainant is Implus Footcare, LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Patrick T. Casey of Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC, Pennsylvania, USA. Respondent is Yaroslav Sovin (“Respondent”), Ukraine.
REGISTRARS AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <yaktraxreviews.com> registered with Name.com LLC, and <yaktraxreview.info> registered with GoDaddy.com LLC.
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.
John J. Upchurch as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on March 29, 2012; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on March 29, 2012.
On March 30, 2012, GoDaddy.com LLC confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <yaktraxreview.info> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com LLC 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 April 5, 2012, Name.com LLC confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <yaktraxreviews.com> domain name is registered with Name.com LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Name.com LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Name.com LLC 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 April 9, 2012, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 30, 2012 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@yaktraxreviews.com, postmaster@yaktraxreview.info. Also on April 9, 2012, 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 May 2, 2012, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed John J. Upchurch 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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant makes the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s <yaktraxreviews.com> and <yaktraxreview.info> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s YAKTRAX mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <yaktraxreviews.com> and <yaktraxreview.info> domain name.
3. Respondent registered or used the <yaktraxreviews.com> and <yaktraxreview.info> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
i. United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") (Reg. No. 2,311,832 registered January 25, 2000);
ii. European Union’s Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (“OHIM”) (Reg. No. 2938041 registered April 29, 2004);
iii. Japanese Patent Office (“JPO”) (Reg. No. 5031326 registered August 29, 2006); and
iv. China’s State Administration of Industry and Commerce (“SAIC”) (Reg. No. 5579877 registered October 14, 2009).
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."
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.
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.”).
Complainant argues that it has sufficiently demonstrated its rights in the YAKTRAX mark through its various trademark registrations around the world, such as those with the USPTO (Reg. No. 2,311,832 registered January 25, 2000); OHIM (Reg. No. 2938041 registered April 29, 2004); the JPO (Reg. No. 5031326 registered August 29, 2006); and the SAIC (Reg. No. 5579877 registered October 14, 2009). The Panel agrees and finds that Complainant has established rights in the YAKTRAX mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Google, Inc. v. DktBot.org, FA 286993 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 4, 2004) (finding that the complainant had established rights in the GOOGLE mark through its holding of numerous trademark registrations around the world); see also Honeywell Int’l Inc. v. r9.net, FA 445594 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 23, 2005) (finding the complainant’s numerous registrations for its HONEYWELL mark throughout the world sufficient to establish the complainant’s rights in the mark under the Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)).
Complainant argues that Respondent’s domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s YAKTRAX mark. The Panel notes that <yaktraxreviews.com> and <yaktraxreview.info> domain names contain the entire YAKTRAX mark while adding the generic terms “reviews” or “review” and the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com” and “.info.” The Panel finds that such additions to Complainant’s mark do not distinguish the domain names from the mark. See 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)); see also Isleworth Land Co. v. Lost in Space, SA, FA 117330 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 27, 2002) (“[I]t is a well established principle that generic top-level domains are irrelevant when conducting a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis.”). Therefore, the Panel determines that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. 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 UDRP ¶ 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 AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 25, 2006) (“Complainant must first make a prima facie showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names, which burden is light. If Complainant satisfies its burden, then the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain names.”).
Complainant asserts that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names. Further, Complainant argues that Respondent has not been authorized or licensed to use the YAKTRAX mark in any way. The Panel notes that the WHOIS information identifies “Yaroslav Sovin” as the registrant of the domain names, which the Panel finds to be dissimilar from the domain names. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names 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 M. Shanken Commc’ns v. WORLDTRAVELERSONLINE.COM, FA 740335 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 3, 2006) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <cigaraficionada.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) based on the WHOIS information and other evidence in the record).
Complainant argues, and submits screenshot evidence to show, the Respondent’s domain names are not being used in connection with active content. Complainant contends that past UDRP decisions have found that a respondent’s failure to make an active use of domain names is evidence of a lack of rights and legitimate interests in the domain name. The Panel agrees and finds that Respondent is not making 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) of the domain names. See Thermo Electron Corp. v. Xu, FA 713851 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 12, 2006) (finding that the respondent’s non-use of the disputed domain names demonstrates that the respondent is not using the disputed domain names for a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)); see also Melbourne IT Ltd. v. Stafford, D2000-1167 (WIPO Oct. 16, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name where there is no proof that the respondent made preparations to use the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services before notice of the domain name dispute).
The Panel finds that the enumerated Policy ¶ 4(b) factors are not exhaustive, and thus the totality of the circumstances may be considered when analyzing bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). 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); see also Cellular One Group v. Brien, D2000-0028 (WIPO Mar. 10, 2000) (finding that the criteria specified in 4(b) of the Policy is not an exhaustive list of bad faith evidence).
Complainant argues that Respondent has not connected either of the domain names to active content, which it argues has been found to constitute bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). The Panel agrees and finds that Respondent’s failure to make an active use of the domain names constitutes bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Disney Enters. Inc. v. Meyers, FA 697818 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 26, 2006) (holding that the non-use of a disputed domain name for several years constitutes bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii); see also Am. Broad. Cos., Inc. v. Sech, FA 893427 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 28, 2007) (concluding that the respondent’s failure to make active use of its domain name in the three months after its registration indicated that the respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith).
Complainant argues that Respondent had actual and/or constructive knowledge of Complainant's rights in the YAKTRAX mark based upon its trademark registrations and widespread usage of the mark. Although panels have not generally regarded constructive notice to be sufficient for a finding of bad faith, the Panel finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's mark and rights and therefore determines that Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Nat'l Patent Servs. Inc. v. Bean, FA 1071869 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 1, 2007) ("[C]onstructive notice does not support a finding of bad faith registration."); see also Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent "actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name").
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <yaktraxreviews.com> and <yaktraxreview.info> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
John J. Upchurch, Panelist
Dated: May 15, 2012
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page