national arbitration forum

 

DECISION

 

Strathmore Partners LP v. PPA Media Services / Ryan G Foo

Claim Number: FA1204001438428

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Strathmore Partners LP (“Complainant”), represented by John C. McElwaine of Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP, South Carolina, USA.  Respondent is PPA Media Services / Ryan G Foo (“Respondent”), Chile.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <bjsclub.com>, registered with Internet.bs Corp.

 

PANEL

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.

 

James A. Carmody, Esq., as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on April 6, 2012; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on April 6, 2012.

 

On April 10, 2012, Internet.bs Corp confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <bjsclub.com> domain name is registered with Internet.bs Corp and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name.  Internet.bs Corp has verified that Respondent is bound by the Internet.bs Corp 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 16, 2012, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of May 7, 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@bjsclub.com.  Also on April 16, 2012, 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 May 10, 2012, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed James A. Carmody, Esq., 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.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A.  Complainant makes the following assertions:

 

1.    Respondent’s <bjsclub.com> domain name, the domain name at issue, is confusingly similar to Complainant’s BJ’S CLUB mark.

 

2.    Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the domain name at issue.

 

3.    Respondent registered and used the domain name at issue in bad faith.

 

B.  Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

BJ's   Wholesale  Club  is  a  membership-based   warehouse  club  that  sells  high-quality brand-name  and  private  label  food  and  general  merchandise  at  affordable  prices.  Complainant owns multiple trademark registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) for its BJ’S WHOLESALE CLUB mark (e.g., Reg. No. 1,643,993 registered May 7, 1991).   Respondent registered the domain name at issue on November 8, 2001.  Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its trademark and Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name at issue.  Respondent's   registration   of   the   Domain   Name,   which   is   nearly   identical   to Complainant's BJ'S CLUB Marks, was done intentionally to divert Complainant's actual and potential customers with a goal of generating revenues for Respondent via click-through advertising.

 

DISCUSSION

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.”).

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

Complainant owns rights in its BJ’S WHOLESALE CLUB mark as evidenced by its trademark registrations with the USPTO for its BJ’S WHOLESALE CLUB mark (e.g., Reg. No. 1,643,993 registered May 7, 1991).  Respondent resides or operates in Chile, not the United States.  Nevertheless, Complainant owns rights in its BJ’S WHOLESALE CLUB mark for the purposes of 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 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 <bjsclub.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark.  Respondent only removes the term “wholesale” from Complainant’s mark and the disputed domain name also does not contain the apostrophe and the spaces found in Complainant’s mark.  The disputed domain name does contain the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.”  Removing a term, spaces, and an apostrophe and adding a gTLD fail to sufficiently distinguish the disputed domain name from Complainant’s mark.  Respondent’s <bjsclub.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s BJ’S WHOLESALE CLUB mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).  See Asprey & Garrard Ltd v. Canlan Computing, D2000-1262 (WIPO Nov. 14, 2000) (finding that the domain name <asprey.com> is confusingly similar to the complainant’s ASPREY & GARRARD and MISS ASPREY marks); see also Daddy’s Junky Music Stores, Inc. v. Kausar, FA 140598 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 11, 2003) (“The lack of an apostrophe in the domain name is not a distinguishing difference because punctuation is not significant in determining the similarity of a domain name and a mark.”); see also U.S. News & World Report, Inc. v. Zhongqi, FA 917070 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 9, 2007) (“Elimination of punctuation and the space between the words of Complainant’s mark, as well as the addition of a gTLD does not sufficiently distinguish the disputed domain name from the mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”).

 

The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been established. 

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name 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.”).

 

Respondent is not commonly known by the <bjsclub.com> domain name.  The WHOIS information, which identifies the domain name registrant as “PPA Media Services / Ryan G Foo,” indicates that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name.  Respondent’s failure to respond in this case ensures that it does not present any evidence to the contrary.  Accordingly, Respondent is not commonly known by the <bjsclub.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).  See Coppertown Drive-Thru Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 17, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <coppertown.com> domain name where there was no evidence in the record, including the WHOIS information, suggesting that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name); see also Instron Corp. v. Kaner, FA 768859 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 21, 2006) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <shoredurometer.com> and <shoredurometers.com> domain names because the WHOIS information listed Andrew Kaner c/o Electromatic a/k/a Electromatic Equip't as the registrant of the disputed domain names and there was no other evidence in the record to suggest that the respondent was commonly known by the domain names in dispute).

 

Respondent uses the disputed domain name to resolve to a parked website containing hyperlinks that resolve to Complainant’s competitors.  Respondent profits from this use by receiving pay-per-click fees.  The Panel holds that Respondent is making neither a Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) bona fide offering of goods or services nor a Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the <bjsclub.com> domain name.  See Meyerson v. Speedy Web, FA 960409 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 25, 2007) (finding that where a respondent has failed to offer any goods or services on its website other than links to a variety of third-party websites, it was not using a domain name in connection with 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 Skyhawke Techns., LLC v. Tidewinds Group, Inc., FA 949608 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 18, 2007) (“Respondent is using the <skycaddy.com> domain name to display a list of hyperlinks, some of which advertise Complainant and its competitors’ products.  The Panel finds that this use of the disputed domain name does not constitute 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 Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been established. 

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Respondent’s resolving website features hyperlinks to other internal webpages and advertisement hyperlinks to products and services in competition with Complainant’s business.  Therefore, Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name necessarily disrupts Complainant’s business.  Respondent registered and uses the <bjsclub.com> domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).  See Tesco Pers. Fin. Ltd. v. Domain Mgmt. Servs., FA 877982 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 13, 2007) (concluding that the use of a confusingly similar domain name to attract Internet users to a directory website containing commercial links to the websites of a complainant’s competitors represents bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)); see also David Hall Rare Coins v. Tex. Int’l Prop. Assocs., FA 915206 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 9, 2007) (finding that the respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) because respondent used the disputed domain name to advertise goods and services of complainant’s competitors, thereby disrupting the complainant’s business).  

In light of the fame and notoriety of Complainant's BJ’S WAREHOUSE CLUB mark, it is inconceivable that Respondent could have registered the <bjsclub.com> domain name without actual and/or constructive knowledge of Complainant's rights in the mark.  Accordingly, any arguments of bad faith based on constructive notice are irrelevant despite the fact that UDRP case precedent declines to find bad faith as a result of constructive knowledge.  See The Way Int'l, Inc. v. Diamond Peters, D2003-0264 (WIPO May 29, 2003) ("As to constructive knowledge, the Panel takes the view that there is no place for such a concept under the Policy.").  The Panel finds in this case that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the mark prior to registering the disputed domain name and finds that such actual knowledge is adequate evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Univision Comm'cns Inc. v. Norte, FA 1000079 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 16, 2007) (rejecting the respondent's contention that it did not register the disputed domain name in bad faith since the panel found that the respondent had knowledge of the complainant's rights in the UNIVISION mark when registering the disputed domain name). 

 

By way of final comment, the Panel notes that this case was brought more than ten years following registration of the disputed domain name.  Had there been a Response filed alleging laches on the part of Complainant, the Panel might well have taken that defense into consideration.

 

The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been established. 

 

DECISION

Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <bjsclub.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

James A. Carmody, Esq., Panelist

Dated:  May 21, 2012

 

 

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page