The St. Joe Company v. Terry Ooten / NA NA
Claim Number: FA1204001440035
Complainant is The St. Joe Company (“Complainant”), represented by Elizabeth G. Borland of Smith, Gambrell & Russell, LLP, Georgia, USA. Respondent is Terry Ooten / NA NA (“Respondent”), Florida, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <watercolorrentals.com>, registered with REGISTER.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.
Honorable Karl V. Fink (Ret.) as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on April 18, 2012; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on April 19, 2012.
On April 19, 2012, REGISTER.COM, INC. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <watercolorrentals.com> domain name is registered with REGISTER.COM, INC. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. REGISTER.COM, INC. has verified that Respondent is bound by the REGISTER.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 April 20, 2012, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of May 10, 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@watercolorrentals.com. Also on April 20, 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 14, 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.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
B. Respondent
Respondent did not submit a response.
For the reasons set forth below, the Panel finds Complainant is entitled to the relief requested.
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 claims that it has established its rights in the WATERCOLOR mark by registering it with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 2,480,515 registered August 21, 2001). Complainant submits multiple printouts from the USPTO website to verify its claims. Based upon the evidence provided, the Panel finds that Complainant has established its rights in the WATERCOLOR mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Disney Enters., Inc. v. Kudrna, FA 686103 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 2, 2006) (finding that the complainant’s registration of the DISNEY trademark with the USPTO prior to the respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name is sufficient to prove that the complainant has rights in the mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)); see also Bloomberg L.P. v. Johnston, FA 760084 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 25, 2006) (finding that the complainant had established rights in the BLOOMBERG mark through registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office).
Complainant also claims that Respondent’s <watercolorrentals.com> domain name is confusingly similar to its WATERCOLOR mark. Complainant states that the disputed domain name includes the entire mark, while merely adding the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com” and the descriptive term “rentals.” The Panel finds that the changes made fail to differentiate the disputed domain name from Complainant’s WATERCOLOR mark, and concludes that Respondent’s <watercolorrentals.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s WATERCOLOR 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 Brown & Bigelow, Inc. v. Rodela, FA 96466 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 5, 2001) (finding that the <hoylecasino.net> domain name is confusingly similar to the complainant’s HOYLE mark, and that the addition of “casino,” a generic word describing the type of business in which the complainant is engaged, does not take the disputed domain name out of the realm of confusing similarity).
Complainant has proven this element.
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.”).
Complainant avers that Respondent is not commonly known by the <watercolorrentals.com> domain name. Respondent has not offered any evidence to support a finding contrary to Complainant’s averments. Complainant states that it has never authorized or licensed Respondent to use the WATERCOLOR mark. Based upon the evidence provided, the Panel concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See St. Lawrence Univ. v. Nextnet Tech, FA 881234 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 21, 2007) (concluding a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name where there was no evidence in the record indicating that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name); see also 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).
Complainant alleges that Respondent is resolving the <watercolorrentals.com> domain name to its own commercial website. Complainant submits a printout from the website to which the disputed domain name resolves, which indicates that the website offers links to third-party businesses, some of which appear to compete with Complainant. The Panel concludes that Respondent is not making a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii), respectively. See 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).”); see also Expedia, Inc. v. Compaid, FA 520654 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 30, 2005) (finding that the respondent’s use of the <expediate.com> domain name to redirect Internet users to a website featuring links to travel services that competed with the complainant was 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)).
Complainant alleges that Respondent attempted to sell the <watercolorrentals.com> domain name to it for $12,000.00. Complainant submits e-mail and regular mail correspondence between it and Respondent where Complainant engaged in negotiations to purchase the disputed domain name from Respondent. The Panel finds that Respondent’s apparent willingness to sell the disputed domain name to Complainant further demonstrates a lack of rights and legitimate interests under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See Williams-Sonoma, Inc. v. Fees, FA 937704 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 25, 2007) (concluding that a respondent’s willingness to sell a domain name to the complainant suggests that a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in that domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)); see also George Weston Bakeries Inc. v. McBroom, FA 933276 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 25, 2007) (holding that where a respondent makes a “disproportionate” offer to sell its domain name registration to the complainant for more than its out-of-pocket registration costs, there is additional evidence that the respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name).
Complainant has proven this element.
Complainant argues that Respondent has attempted to sell the <watercolorrentals.com> domain name to it for $12,000.00. Complainant submits the correspondence between it and Respondent to verify its argument. The correspondence submitted supports Complainant’s argument. Thus, the Panel concludes that Respondent’s offer to sell the disputed domain name to Complainant is further evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(i). See Neiman Marcus Group, Inc. v. AchievementTec, Inc., FA 192316 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 15, 2003) (finding the respondent’s offer to sell the domain name for $2,000 sufficient evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(i)); see also Campmor, Inc. v. GearPro.com, FA 197972 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 5, 2003) (“Respondent registered the disputed domain name and offered to sell it to Complainant for $10,600. This demonstrates bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(i).”).
Complainant also argues that Respondent is attempting to commercially gain from the confusion created by its disputed domain name. Complainant submits a printout from the website to which the disputed domain name resolve indicating that Respondent offers links to third-party businesses from the website, some of which may be deemed Complainant’s competitors. Previous panels have held that such a use supports a finding of bad faith under this provision. See Univ. of Houston Sys. v. Salvia Corp., FA 637920 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 21, 2006) (“Respondent is using the disputed domain name to operate a website which features links to competing and non-competing commercial websites from which Respondent presumably receives referral fees. Such use for Respondent’s own commercial gain is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).”); see also AltaVista Co. v. Krotov, D2000-1091 (WIPO Oct. 25, 2000) (finding bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the respondent’s domain name resolved to a website that offered links to third-party websites that offered services similar to the complainant’s services and merely took advantage of Internet user mistakes). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
Complainant asserts that Respondent had actual or constructive knowledge of its rights in the WATERCOLOR mark when it registered the disputed domain name. Complainant claims that its mark is well-known. Complainant also claims that Respondent included the Watercolor Resort name on a different website that it owns. Complainant claims that this confluence of factors should lead the Panel to find that Respondent had actual or constructive knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the WATERCOLOR mark. The Panel concludes that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the WATERCOLOR mark when it registered the <watercolorrentals.com> domain name and the Panel therefore finds that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Custom Modular Direct LLC v. Custom Modular Homes Inc., FA 1140580 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 8, 2008) ("There is no place for constructive notice under the Policy."); see also Immigration Equality v. Brent, FA 1103571 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 11, 2008) ("That Respondent proceeded to register a domain name identical to, and with prior knowledge of Complainant's mark is sufficient to prove bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).").
Complainant has proven this element.
Complainant having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the <watercolorrentals.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Honorable Karl V. Fink (Ret.), Panelist
Dated: May 18, 2012
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page