Thompson & Company of Tampa, Inc. v. Andrew Luthi
Claim Number: FA1204001440472
Complainant is Thompson & Company of Tampa, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Thomas P. Arden of Holland & Knight LLP, Illinois, USA. Respondent is Andrew Luthi (“Respondent”), New York, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <bagatellecigars.us>, <barloventocigars.us>, <belmondocigars.us>, <biarritzcigars.us>, <bohiocigars.us>, <chavoncigars.us>, <choppercigars.us>, <cosecherocigars.us>, <diegodeocampocigars.us>, <dolcevitacigars.us>, <donainescigars.us>, <donaugustocigars.us>, <donchuchucigars.us>, <donlugocigars.us>, <donosvaldocigars.us>, <elartistabambinocigars.us>, <elartistafumascigars.us>, <eliteseriescigars.us>, <empresariocigars.us>, <empressofcubacigars.us>, <eroscigars.us>, <ferdinandandisabellacigars.us>, <flordedominguezcigars.us>, <flordefilipinascigars.us>, <flordejalapacigars.us>, <goldenclasscigars.us>, <iguanacigars.us>, <josegirbescigars.us>, <labambacigars.us>, <lacondesacigars.us>, <lapalomacigars.us>, <lapalomalimitededitioncigars.us>, <leprechauncigars.us>, <manoletecigars.us>, <miraflorcigars.us>, <navarrocigars.us>, <nimbuscigars.us>, <papayocigars.us>, <pasodoblecigars.us>, <ranchodominicanocigars.us>, <rgsantiagocigars.us>, <roughneckcigars.us>, <scoundrelscigars.us>, <sonadorcigars.us>, <stgeorgecigars.us>, <thompson-cigars.us>, <timbuctoocigars.us>, <torotorocigars.us>, <tuskercigars.us>, and <vsopcigars.us>, 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 April 23, 2012; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on April 24, 2012.
On April 23, 2012, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <bagatellecigars.us>, <barloventocigars.us>, <belmondocigars.us>, <biarritzcigars.us>, <bohiocigars.us>, <chavoncigars.us>, <choppercigars.us>, <cosecherocigars.us>, <diegodeocampocigars.us>, <dolcevitacigars.us>, <donainescigars.us>, <donaugustocigars.us>, <donchuchucigars.us>, <donlugocigars.us>, <donosvaldocigars.us>, <elartistabambinocigars.us>, <elartistafumascigars.us>, <eliteseriescigars.us>, <empresariocigars.us>, <empressofcubacigars.us>, <eroscigars.us>, <ferdinandandisabellacigars.us>, <flordedominguezcigars.us>, <flordefilipinascigars.us>, <flordejalapacigars.us>, <goldenclasscigars.us>, <iguanacigars.us>, <josegirbescigars.us>, <labambacigars.us>, <lacondesacigars.us>, <lapalomacigars.us>, <lapalomalimitededitioncigars.us>, <leprechauncigars.us>, <manoletecigars.us>, <miraflorcigars.us>, <navarrocigars.us>, <nimbuscigars.us>, <papayocigars.us>, <pasodoblecigars.us>, <ranchodominicanocigars.us>, <rgsantiagocigars.us>, <roughneckcigars.us>, <scoundrelscigars.us>, <sonadorcigars.us>, <stgeorgecigars.us>, <thompson-cigars.us>, <timbuctoocigars.us>, <torotorocigars.us>, <tuskercigars.us>, and <vsopcigars.us> domain names are registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. 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 the U. S. Department of Commerce’s usTLD Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On April 25, 2012, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of May 15, 2012 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, was transmitted to Respondent in compliance with Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for usTLD Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”).
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On May 17, 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 Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, the Rules, the 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 <bagatellecigars.us>, <barloventocigars.us>, <belmondocigars.us>, <biarritzcigars.us>, <bohiocigars.us>, <chavoncigars.us>, <choppercigars.us>, <cosecherocigars.us>, <diegodeocampocigars.us>, <dolcevitacigars.us>, <donainescigars.us>, <donaugustocigars.us>, <donchuchucigars.us>, <donlugocigars.us>, <donosvaldocigars.us>, <elartistabambinocigars.us>, <elartistafumascigars.us>, <eliteseriescigars.us>, <empresariocigars.us>, <empressofcubacigars.us>, <eroscigars.us>, <ferdinandandisabellacigars.us>, <flordedominguezcigars.us>, <flordefilipinascigars.us>, <flordejalapacigars.us>, <goldenclasscigars.us>, <iguanacigars.us>, <josegirbescigars.us>, <labambacigars.us>, <lacondesacigars.us>, <lapalomacigars.us>, <lapalomalimitededitioncigars.us>, <leprechauncigars.us>, <manoletecigars.us>, <miraflorcigars.us>, <navarrocigars.us>, <nimbuscigars.us>, <papayocigars.us>, <pasodoblecigars.us>, <ranchodominicanocigars.us>, <rgsantiagocigars.us>, <roughneckcigars.us>, <scoundrelscigars.us>, <sonadorcigars.us>, <stgeorgecigars.us>, <thompson-cigars.us>, <timbuctoocigars.us>, <torotorocigars.us>, <tuskercigars.us>, and <vsopcigars.us>> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s THOMPSON, THOMPSON CIGAR, BAGATELLE SELLO DE ORO HANDMADE IMPORTED, BARLOVENTO THOMPSON, BELMONDO, BIARRITZ, BOHIO, CHAVON, CHOPPER, DIEGO DE OCAMP, IMPORTED HANDMADE DOLCE VITA THOMPSON, DONA INES, DON AUGUSTO, DON CHUCHU, DON LUGO, DON OSVALDO, EL ARTISTA BAMBINO, EL ARTISTA FUMAS, THOMPSON ELITE SERIES, EMPRESARIO, EMPRESS OF CUBA BY THOMPSON CIGAR CO., EROS, FERDINAND Y ISABELLA, FLOR DE DOMINGUEZ, FLOR DE FILIPINAS, FLOR DE JALAPA, IGUANA, J G JOSE GIRBES, LA BAMBA, LA CONDESA, LAPALOMA, LEPRCHAUN, MANOLETE, MIRAFLOR, NAVARRO, NIMBUS, PAPAYO, PASO DOBLE, RANCHO DOMINICANO, R G SANTIAGO DOMINICAN, ROUGHNECK, SCOUNDRELS, SONADOR, ST. GEORGE, TIMBUCTOO, TORO TORO, TUSKER and V.S.O.P. marks.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <bagatellecigars.us>, <barloventocigars.us>, <belmondocigars.us>, <biarritzcigars.us>, <bohiocigars.us>, <chavoncigars.us>, <choppercigars.us>, <cosecherocigars.us>, <diegodeocampocigars.us>, <dolcevitacigars.us>, <donainescigars.us>, <donaugustocigars.us>, <donchuchucigars.us>, <donlugocigars.us>, <donosvaldocigars.us>, <elartistabambinocigars.us>, <elartistafumascigars.us>, <eliteseriescigars.us>, <empresariocigars.us>, <empressofcubacigars.us>, <eroscigars.us>, <ferdinandandisabellacigars.us>, <flordedominguezcigars.us>, <flordefilipinascigars.us>, <flordejalapacigars.us>, <goldenclasscigars.us>, <iguanacigars.us>, <josegirbescigars.us>, <labambacigars.us>, <lacondesacigars.us>, <lapalomacigars.us>, <lapalomalimitededitioncigars.us>, <leprechauncigars.us>, <manoletecigars.us>, <miraflorcigars.us>, <navarrocigars.us>, <nimbuscigars.us>, <papayocigars.us>, <pasodoblecigars.us>, <ranchodominicanocigars.us>, <rgsantiagocigars.us>, <roughneckcigars.us>, <scoundrelscigars.us>, <sonadorcigars.us>, <stgeorgecigars.us>, <thompson-cigars.us>, <timbuctoocigars.us>, <torotorocigars.us>, <tuskercigars.us>, and <vsopcigars.us>> domain names.
3. Respondent registered or used the <bagatellecigars.us>, <barloventocigars.us>, <belmondocigars.us>, <biarritzcigars.us>, <bohiocigars.us>, <chavoncigars.us>, <choppercigars.us>, <cosecherocigars.us>, <diegodeocampocigars.us>, <dolcevitacigars.us>, <donainescigars.us>, <donaugustocigars.us>, <donchuchucigars.us>, <donlugocigars.us>, <donosvaldocigars.us>, <elartistabambinocigars.us>, <elartistafumascigars.us>, <eliteseriescigars.us>, <empresariocigars.us>, <empressofcubacigars.us>, <eroscigars.us>, <ferdinandandisabellacigars.us>, <flordedominguezcigars.us>, <flordefilipinascigars.us>, <flordejalapacigars.us>, <goldenclasscigars.us>, <iguanacigars.us>, <josegirbescigars.us>, <labambacigars.us>, <lacondesacigars.us>, <lapalomacigars.us>, <lapalomalimitededitioncigars.us>, <leprechauncigars.us>, <manoletecigars.us>, <miraflorcigars.us>, <navarrocigars.us>, <nimbuscigars.us>, <papayocigars.us>, <pasodoblecigars.us>, <ranchodominicanocigars.us>, <rgsantiagocigars.us>, <roughneckcigars.us>, <scoundrelscigars.us>, <sonadorcigars.us>, <stgeorgecigars.us>, <thompson-cigars.us>, <timbuctoocigars.us>, <torotorocigars.us>, <tuskercigars.us>, and <vsopcigars.us>> domain names in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
1) Complainant, Thompson & Company of Tampa, Inc., has manufactured, promoted, and sold cigars since 1915.
2) Complainant owns the following trademarks with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO"):
· THOMPSON (Reg. No. 1,069,489 registered July 12, 1977);
· THOMPSON CIGAR (Reg. No. 2,579,596 registered June 11, 2002);
· BAGATELLE SELLO DE ORO HANDMADE IMPORTED (Reg. No. 2,930,740 registered March 8, 2005);
· BARLOVENTO THOMPSON (Reg. No. 3,011,157 registered November 1, 2005);
· BELMONDO (Reg. No. 2,215,003 registered December 29, 1998);
· BIARRITZ (Reg. No. 2,870,103 registered August 3, 2004);
· BOHIO (Reg. No. 2,085,025 registered July 29, 1997);
· CHAVON (Reg. No. 2,205,085 registered November 24, 1998);
· CHOPPER (Reg. No. 3,066,678 registered March 7, 2006);
· DIEGO DE OCAMP (Reg. No. 2,194,161 registered October 6, 1998);
· IMPORTED HANDMADE DOLCE VITA THOMPSON (Reg. No. 2,536,771 registered February 5, 2002);
· DONA INES (Reg. No. 2,472,362 registered July 24, 2001);
· DON AUGUSTO (Reg. No. 4,055,882 filed March 28, 2011; registered November 15, 2011);
· DON CHUCHU (Reg. No. 2,979,832 registered July 26, 2005);
· DON LUGO (Reg. No. 3,134,251 registered August 22, 2006);
· DON OSVALDO (Reg. No. 2,974,536 registered July 19, 2005);
· EL ARTISTA BAMBINO (Reg. No. 3,134,250 registered August 22, 2006);
· EL ARTISTA FUMAS (Reg. No. 4,055,885 filed March 28, 2011; registered November 15, 2011);
· THOMPSON ELITE SERIES (Reg. No. 3,848,830 filed September 12, 2009; registered September 14, 2010);
· EMPRESARIO (Reg. No. 2,995,348 registered September 13, 2005);
· EMPRESS OF CUBA BY THOMPSON CIGAR CO. (Reg. No. 2,331,174 registered March 21, 2000);
· EROS (Reg. No. 2,928,253 registered February 22, 2005);
· FERDINAND Y ISABELLA (Reg. No. 2,974,499 registered July 19, 2005);
· FLOR DE DOMINGUEZ (Reg. No. 2,795,842 registered December 16, 2003);
· FLOR DE FILIPINAS (Reg. No. 3,157,811 registered October 17, 2006);
· FLOR DE JALAPA (Reg. No. 2,062,192 registered May 13, 1997);
· IGUANA (Reg. No. 2,725,746 registered June 10, 2003);
· J G JOSE GIRBES (Reg. No. 2,171,818 registered July 7, 1998);
· LA BAMBA (Reg. No. 2,161,028 registered May 26, 1998);
· LA CONDESA (Reg. No. 2,992,797 registered September 6, 2005);
· LAPALOMA (Reg. No. 2,122,370 registered December 16, 1997);
· LEPRCHAUN (Reg. No. 3,300,088 registered September 25, 2007);
· MANOLETE (Reg. No. 2,784,626 registered November 18, 2003);
· MIRAFLOR (Reg. No. 2,714,367 registered May 6, 2003);
· NAVARRO (Reg. No. 2,107,980 registered October 21, 1997);
· NIMBUS (Reg. No. 3,963,225 registered filed March 26, 2010; registered may 17, 2011);
· PAPAYO (Reg. No. 3,088,812 registered May 2, 2006);
· PASO DOBLE (Reg. No. 2,967,503 registered July 12, 2005);
· RANCHO DOMINICANO (Reg. No. 2,237,565 registered April 6, 1999);
· R G SANTIAGO DOMINICAN (Reg. No. 2,170,308 registered June 30, 1998);
· ROUGHNECK (Reg. No. 2,870,013 registered August 3, 2004);
· SCOUNDRELS (Reg. No. 3,696,973 registered October 13, 2009);
· SONADOR (Reg. No. 2,735,516 registered July 8, 2003);
· ST. GEORGE (Reg. No. 2,212,894 December 22, 1998);
· TIMBUCTOO (Reg. No. 3,018,207 registered November 22, 2005);
· TORO TORO (Reg. No. 2,879,862 registered August 31, 2004);
· TUSKER (Reg. No. 3,018,208 registered November 22, 2005); and
· V.S.O.P. (Reg. No. 2,174,436 registered July 21, 1998).
3) The disputed domain names contain Complainant’s marks along with the descriptive term “cigars” and the country-code top-level domain (“ccTLD”) “.us,” thus making them confusingly similar to the marks.
4) Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names and has not been authorized to use Complainant’s marks.
5) Respondent had been previously terminated from Complainant’s affiliate program for using others’ trademarks to redirect Internet users to Complainant’s website.
6) Respondent’s domain names resolve to websites featuring links to Respondent’s competing website or to other businesses that compete with Complainant in the cigar industry.
7) Respondent’s use of the domain names for such a purpose is evidence of bad faith registration and use.
8) Respondent’s registration of fifty domain names, and prior involvement in UDRP proceedings, is also evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii).
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 or 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.”).
Given the similarity between the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“UDRP”) and the usTLD Policy, the Panel will draw upon UDRP precedent as applicable in rendering its decision.
Complainant contends that it has rights in the following trademarks via its trademark registrations with the USPTO:
· THOMPSON (Reg. No. 1,069,489 registered July 12, 1977);
· THOMPSON CIGAR (Reg. No. 2,579,596 registered June 11, 2002);
· BAGATELLE SELLO DE ORO HANDMADE IMPORTED (Reg. No. 2,930,740 registered March 8, 2005);
· BARLOVENTO THOMPSON (Reg. No. 3,011,157 registered November 1, 2005);
· BELMONDO (Reg. No. 2,215,003 registered December 29, 1998);
· BIARRITZ (Reg. No. 2,870,103 registered August 3, 2004);
· BOHIO (Reg. No. 2,085,025 registered July 29, 1997);
· CHAVON (Reg. No. 2,205,085 registered November 24, 1998);
· CHOPPER (Reg. No. 3,066,678 registered March 7, 2006);
· DIEGO DE OCAMP (Reg. No. 2,194,161 registered October 6, 1998);
· IMPORTED HANDMADE DOLCE VITA THOMPSON (Reg. No. 2,536,771 registered February 5, 2002);
· DONA INES (Reg. No. 2,472,362 registered July 24, 2001);
· DON AUGUSTO (Reg. No. 4,055,882 filed March 28, 2011; registered November 15, 2011);
· DON CHUCHU (Reg. No. 2,979,832 registered July 26, 2005);
· DON LUGO (Reg. No. 3,134,251 registered August 22, 2006);
· DON OSVALDO (Reg. No. 2,974,536 registered July 19, 2005);
· EL ARTISTA BAMBINO (Reg. No. 3,134,250 registered August 22, 2006);
· EL ARTISTA FUMAS (Reg. No. 4,055,885 filed March 28, 2011; registered November 15, 2011);
· THOMPSON ELITE SERIES (Reg. No. 3,848,830 filed September 12, 2009; registered September 14, 2010);
· EMPRESARIO (Reg. No. 2,995,348 registered September 13, 2005);
· EMPRESS OF CUBA BY THOMPSON CIGAR CO. (Reg. No. 2,331,174 registered March 21, 2000);
· EROS (Reg. No. 2,928,253 registered February 22, 2005);
· FERDINAND Y ISABELLA (Reg. No. 2,974,499 registered July 19, 2005);
· FLOR DE DOMINGUEZ (Reg. No. 2,795,842 registered December 16, 2003);
· FLOR DE FILIPINAS (Reg. No. 3,157,811 registered October 17, 2006);
· FLOR DE JALAPA (Reg. No. 2,062,192 registered May 13, 1997);
· IGUANA (Reg. No. 2,725,746 registered June 10, 2003);
· J G JOSE GIRBES (Reg. No. 2,171,818 registered July 7, 1998);
· LA BAMBA (Reg. No. 2,161,028 registered May 26, 1998);
· LA CONDESA (Reg. No. 2,992,797 registered September 6, 2005);
· LAPALOMA (Reg. No. 2,122,370 registered December 16, 1997);
· LEPRCHAUN (Reg. No. 3,300,088 registered September 25, 2007);
· MANOLETE (Reg. No. 2,784,626 registered November 18, 2003);
· MIRAFLOR (Reg. No. 2,714,367 registered May 6, 2003);
· NAVARRO (Reg. No. 2,107,980 registered October 21, 1997);
· NIMBUS (Reg. No. 3,963,225 registered filed March 26, 2010; registered may 17, 2011);
· PAPAYO (Reg. No. 3,088,812 registered May 2, 2006);
· PASO DOBLE (Reg. No. 2,967,503 registered July 12, 2005);
· RANCHO DOMINICANO (Reg. No. 2,237,565 registered April 6, 1999);
· R G SANTIAGO DOMINICAN (Reg. No. 2,170,308 registered June 30, 1998);
· ROUGHNECK (Reg. No. 2,870,013 registered August 3, 2004);
· SCOUNDRELS (Reg. No. 3,696,973 registered October 13, 2009);
· SONADOR (Reg. No. 2,735,516 registered July 8, 2003);
· ST. GEORGE (Reg. No. 2,212,894 December 22, 1998);
· TIMBUCTOO (Reg. No. 3,018,207 registered November 22, 2005);
· TORO TORO (Reg. No. 2,879,862 registered August 31, 2004);
· TUSKER (Reg. No. 3,018,208 registered November 22, 2005); and
· V.S.O.P. (Reg. No. 2,174,436 registered July 21, 1998).
The Panel finds that Complainant has established rights in its marks through such registrations with the USPTO and that Complainant’s rights in those marks date back to their original filing dates with the USPTO. See Intel Corp. v. Macare, FA 660685 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 26, 2006) (finding that the complainant had established rights in the PENTIUM, CENTRINO and INTEL INSIDE marks by registering the marks with the USPTO); see also Hershey Co. v. Reaves, FA 967818 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 8, 2007) (finding that the complainant’s rights in the KISSES trademark through registration of the mark with the USPTO “date back to the filing date of the trademark application and predate [the] respondent’s registration”).
Further, the Panel notes that Complainant does not own a trademark for the COSECHERO mark, but has submitted evidence that it has applied for trademark protection with the USPTO (Ser. No. 85,192,339 filed December 7, 2010). First, the Panel notes that under the usTLD, like the UDRP, a trademark is not required for a complainant to establish rights in its mark, if Complainant can establish common law rights in the mark. See Zee TV USA, Inc. v. Siddiqi, FA 721969 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 18, 2006) (finding that the complainant need not own a valid trademark registration for the ZEE CINEMA mark in order to demonstrate its rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)); see also Artistic Pursuit LLC v. calcuttawebdevelopers.com, FA 894477 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 8, 2007) (finding that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) does not require a trademark registration if a complainant can establish common law rights in its mark).
The Panel notes that Complainant does not specifically argue that it has common law rights in the COSECHERO mark, but Complainant does state that it has used the mark continuously since 2001. Further, Complainant submits its trademark application with the USPTO discussed above as well as representative samples of its use of the mark in commerce in its Exhibit 12. The Panel finds that such evidence is sufficient for Complainant to establish common law rights in its COSECHERO mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), dating back to 2001. See Tuxedos By Rose v. Nunez, FA 95248 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 17, 2000) (finding common law rights in a mark where its use was continuous and ongoing, and secondary meaning was established); see also Goepfert v. Rogers, FA 861124 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 17, 2007) (“[T]here is no particular amount of evidence required in order to establish common law rights. The determination of what is sufficient is ad hoc based on the specific facts and circumstances involved, as is the scope of the rights once established.”).
Complainant asserts that all of the disputed domain names comprise Complainant’s marks, in addition to the descriptive term “cigars” and the ccTLD “.us.” As the Panel notes, some of the disputed domain names also make additions, subtractions, and other changes to Complainant’s marks as follows: deleting terms from the marks; omitting the space between the terms of some marks; changing the Spanish word for “and,” which is “y,” to the word “and;” adding a hyphen and the letter “s;” and/or omitting periods within the marks. Therefore, the Panel finds that deleting terms from the mark and omitting spaces between the terms are not sufficient to differentiate the domain names from the marks. See WestJet Air Ctr., Inc. v. W. Jets LLC, FA 96882 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 20, 2001) (finding that the <westjets.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark, where the complainant holds the WEST JET AIR CENTER mark); see also Am. Int’l Group, Inc. v. Domain Admin. Ltd., FA 1106369 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 31, 2007) (finding that “spaces are impermissible and a generic top-level domain, such as ‘.com,’ ‘.net,’ ‘.biz,’ or ‘.org,’ is required in domain names. Therefore, the panel finds that the disputed domain name [<americangenerallifeinsurance.com>] is confusingly similar to the complainant’s [AMERICAN GENERAL] mark.”). Further, the Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the English term “and” in place of the Spanish translation for that term of “y” is also not sufficient to distinguish a domain name from a mark. See Société pour l’Oeuvre et la Mémoire d’Antoine de Saint Exupéry – Succession Saint Exupéry – D’Agay v. Perlegos Prop., D2005-1085 (WIPO Jan. 2, 2006) (“[A] semantic similarity between a trademark and a domain name can also exist if the trademark and the domain name contain word elements of different languages if a considerable part of the public understands the meaning of the translation.”). Next the Panel determines that the inclusion or absence of puncuation, such as a hyhen or periods, from the mark is not sufficient to render the domain names free standing from the mark. See Mrs. World Pageants, Inc. v. Crown Promotions, FA 94321 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 24, 2000) (finding that punctuation is not significant in determining the similarity of a domain name and mark); see also Chernow Commc’ns, Inc. v. Kimball, D2000-0119 (WIPO May 18, 2000) (holding “that the use or absence of punctuation marks, such as hyphens, does not alter the fact that a name is identical to a mark"). Additionally the Panel finds that adding a single letter, in this instance the letter “s,” is also not sufficient to render the domain name distinct from the mark. See T.R. World Gym-IP, LLC v. D’Addio, FA 956501 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 22, 2007) (finding that the addition of the letter “s” to a registered trademark in a contested domain name is not enough to avoid a finding of confusing similarity under UDRP ¶ 4(a)(i)). Lastly, the Panel finds that the inclusion of a descriptive term, such as “cigars,” and the ccTLD “.us” is also not a proper method to distinguish the domain name from the marks. See Novell, Inc. v. Taeho Kim, FA 167964 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 24, 2003) (finding the <novellsolutions.com> domain name confusingly similar to the NOVELL mark despite the addition of the descriptive term “solutions” because even though “the word ‘solutions’ is descriptive when used for software, Respondent has used this word paired with Complainant's trademark NOVELL”); see also World Wrestling Fed'n Entm't, Inc. v. Rapuano, DTV2001-0010 (WIPO May 23, 2001) (“The addition of the country code top level domain (ccTLD) designation <.tv> does not serve to distinguish [the disputed domain] names from the complainant’s marks since ‘.tv’ is a common Internet address identifier that is not specifically associated with Respondent.”).
Therefore, based upon the evidence submitted by Complainant, the Panel finds that the <bagatellecigars.us>, <barloventocigars.us>, <belmondocigars.us>, <biarritzcigars.us>, <bohiocigars.us>, <chavoncigars.us>, <choppercigars.us>, <cosecherocigars.us>, <diegodeocampocigars.us>, <dolcevitacigars.us>, <donainescigars.us>, <donaugustocigars.us>, <donchuchucigars.us>, <donlugocigars.us>, <donosvaldocigars.us>, <elartistabambinocigars.us>, <elartistafumascigars.us>, <eliteseriescigars.us>, <empresariocigars.us>, <empressofcubacigars.us>, <eroscigars.us>, <ferdinandandisabellacigars.us>, <flordedominguezcigars.us>, <flordefilipinascigars.us>, <flordejalapacigars.us>, <goldenclasscigars.us>, <iguanacigars.us>, <josegirbescigars.us>, <labambacigars.us>, <lacondesacigars.us>, <lapalomacigars.us>, <lapalomalimitededitioncigars.us>, <leprechauncigars.us>, <manoletecigars.us>, <miraflorcigars.us>, <navarrocigars.us>, <nimbuscigars.us>, <papayocigars.us>, <pasodoblecigars.us>, <ranchodominicanocigars.us>, <rgsantiagocigars.us>, <roughneckcigars.us>, <scoundrelscigars.us>, <sonadorcigars.us>, <stgeorgecigars.us>, <thompson-cigars.us>, <timbuctoocigars.us>, <torotorocigars.us>, <tuskercigars.us>, and <vsopcigars.us> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s marks as presented above 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.”).
The Panel notes that Complainant does not submit arguments indicating that Respondent does not have a trademark or service mark registration for any of the disputed domain names. However, the Panel also notes that Respondent has not come forward with such evidence either. Therefore, the Panel finds that the record is devoid of any evidence that would indicate Respondent owns a trademark or service mark and that Respondent has therefore failed to satisfy Policy ¶ 4(c)(i). See Meow Media Inc. v. Basil, FA 113280 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 20, 2002) (finding that there was no evidence that the respondent was the owner or beneficiary of a mark that is identical to the <persiankitty.us> domain name); see also Pepsico, Inc. v Becky, FA 117014 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 3, 2002) (holding that because the respondent did not own any trademarks or service marks reflecting the <pepsicola.us> domain name, it had no rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i)).
Complainant does argue that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names or any of Complainant’s marks. Complainant notes that the WHOIS information identifies “Andrew Luthi” as the registrant for the domain names. Further, Complainant argues that “Andrew Luthi” does business as “Cigar Magazine” or “Cigar Choice.” The Panel agrees and find that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See 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 UDRP ¶ 4(c)(ii) based on the WHOIS information and other evidence in the record); see also 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).
Complainant contends that Respondent is using the disputed domain names to resolves to one page websites that contain third-party links. Complainant notes that some of the domain names appear to be direct copies of Complainant’s website, but that when an Internet user clicks on one of the links contained thereon that user is routed to Respondent’s competing <cigarchoice.com> website. Complainant argues that all of the domain names but three resolve to this type of website, with the <dolcevitacigars.us>, <diegodeocampocigars.us>, and <leprechauncigars.us> domain names resolving to Respondent’s other website located at <cigarsmag.com>. Complainant notes that it removed Respondent as an affiliate for improper use of other parties’ trademarks in selling cigar products and that currently Respondent’s use of the disputed domain names to send Internet users to Complainant’s competitor’s websites is not a legitimate use. Further, Complainant asserts that Respondent profits from such use by being an affiliate of these other sites and businesses and by signing Internet users on to its own affiliate program. The Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to route Internet users to Complainant’s competitors, presumably for financial gain, is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iv). See Disney Enters., Inc. v. Kamble, FA 918556 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 27, 2007) (holding that the operation of a pay-per-click website at a confusingly similar domain name was not a bona fide offering of goods or services under UDRP ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under UDRP ¶ 4(c)(iii)); see also TM Acquisition Corp. v. Sign Guards, FA 132439 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 31, 2002) (finding that the respondent’s diversionary use of the complainant’s marks to send Internet users to a website which displayed a series of links, some of which linked to the complainant’s competitors, was not a bona fide offering of goods or services).
Complainant asserts that Respondent has been the respondent in prior usTLD proceedings in which it was ordered to transfer the domain names at issue to the respective complainant’s. See John Middleton Co. v. Luthi, FA 1381380 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 6, 2011); see also Davidoff & Cie SA v. Luthi, FA 1407508 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 31, 2011); see also Oettinger Imex AG v. Luthi, FA 1407541 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 31, 2011). Complainant argues that such cases establish Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the current domain names. Complainant further asserts that Respondent’s registration of fifty domain names in the current instance is also evidence, in and of itself, of Respondent’s bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). The Panel agrees and find that Respondent has engaged in a pattern of bad faith domain name registrations under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii) where it has been involved in prior usTLD disputes and has registered fifty domain names that contain Complainant’s marks. Thus, the Panel concludes that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain names in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). See Westcoast Contempo Fashions Ltd. v. Manila Indus., Inc., FA 814312 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 29, 2006) (finding bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii) where the respondent had been subject to numerous UDRP proceedings where panels ordered the transfer of disputed domain names containing the trademarks of the complainants); see also Caterpillar Inc. v. Miyar, FA 95623 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 14, 2000) (finding that registering multiple domain names in a short time frame indicates an intention to prevent the mark holder from using its mark and provides evidence of a pattern of conduct).
Complainant further argues that Respondent is commercially profiting through its use of Complainant’s marks. Complainant argues that Respondent profits from sending Internet users to Complainant’s competitors through affiliate programs and through its own sale of goods at the <cigarchoice.com> and <cigarmag.com> websites. Complainant asserts that such use of its marks for commercial gain “unquestionably is bad faith.” The Panel agrees and finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain names in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See 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); see also Scholastic Inc. v. Applied Software Solutions, Inc., D2000-1629 (WIPO Mar. 15, 2001) (finding bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) because the respondent initially used the disputed domain name to sell educational services that targeted the complainant’s market).
Having established all three elements required under the usTLD Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <bagatellecigars.us>, <barloventocigars.us>, <belmondocigars.us>, <biarritzcigars.us>, <bohiocigars.us>, <chavoncigars.us>, <choppercigars.us>, <cosecherocigars.us>, <diegodeocampocigars.us>, <dolcevitacigars.us>, <donainescigars.us>, <donaugustocigars.us>, <donchuchucigars.us>, <donlugocigars.us>, <donosvaldocigars.us>, <elartistabambinocigars.us>, <elartistafumascigars.us>, <eliteseriescigars.us>, <empresariocigars.us>, <empressofcubacigars.us>, <eroscigars.us>, <ferdinandandisabellacigars.us>, <flordedominguezcigars.us>, <flordefilipinascigars.us>, <flordejalapacigars.us>, <goldenclasscigars.us>, <iguanacigars.us>, <josegirbescigars.us>, <labambacigars.us>, <lacondesacigars.us>, <lapalomacigars.us>, <lapalomalimitededitioncigars.us>, <leprechauncigars.us>, <manoletecigars.us>, <miraflorcigars.us>, <navarrocigars.us>, <nimbuscigars.us>, <papayocigars.us>, <pasodoblecigars.us>, <ranchodominicanocigars.us>, <rgsantiagocigars.us>, <roughneckcigars.us>, <scoundrelscigars.us>, <sonadorcigars.us>, <stgeorgecigars.us>, <thompson-cigars.us>, <timbuctoocigars.us>, <torotorocigars.us>, <tuskercigars.us>, and <vsopcigars.us> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
John J. Upchurch, Panelist
Dated: May 30, 2012
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page