Philip Morris USA Inc. v. THOMAS WARD
Claim Number: FA1208001456379
Complainant is Philip Morris USA Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Roberta L. Horton of Arnold & Porter LLP, Washington, D.C., USA. Respondent is THOMAS WARD (“Respondent”), Delaware, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <marlboro4.com> and <marlboro4.biz>, registered with Key-Systems GmbH.
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 August 2, 2012; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on August 3, 2012.
On August 6, 2012, Key-Systems GmbH confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <marlboro4.com>, <marlboro4.biz> domain names are registered with Key-Systems GmbH and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Key-Systems GmbH has verified that Respondent is bound by the Key-Systems GmbH 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 August 7, 2012, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 27, 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@marlboro4.com and postmaster@marlboro4.biz. Also on August 7, 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 August 30, 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 <marlboro4.com> and <marlboro4.biz> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s MARLBORO mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <marlboro4.com> and <marlboro4.biz> domain names.
3. Respondent registered or used the <marlboro4.com> and <marlboro4.biz> domain names in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
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 rights in the MARLBORO mark through several trademark registrations that it owns with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 68,502 registered April 14, 1908). The Panel finds that such registrations are sufficient for Complainant to establish rights in the MARLBORO mark under 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).”).
Further, Complainant contends that the <marlboro4.com> and <marlboro4.biz> domain names are confusingly similar to the MARLBORO mark, only adding the number “4” and a gTLD to the mark. The Panel agrees and find that such changes to the MARLBORO mark are not sufficient to prevent a finding of confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Am. Online Inc. v. Chinese ICQ Network, D2000-0808 (WIPO Aug. 31, 2000) (finding that the addition of the numeral 4 in the domain name <4icq.com> does nothing to deflect the impact on the viewer of the mark ICQ and is therefore confusingly similar); 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 finds that the <marlboro4.com> and <marlboro4.biz> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s MARLBORO mark pursuant to 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 he 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 argues that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names, does not own trademark registrations encompassing the domain names, and has not been granted a license or permission to use the MARLBORO mark in any way. The Panel notes that the WHOIS information for the disputed domain name identifies “Thomas Ward” as registrant of the disputed domain names. Complainant argues that this information is not correct, however, as it has spoken with Thomas Ward and has verified that he was deployed in Afghanistan during the registration of the disputed domain names. Complainant believes that Respondent has been the victim of identity theft. With no evidence to the contrary, the Panel holds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names 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).
Further, Complainant claims that neither of the disputed domain names resolve to an active website. Complainant asserts that, as such, 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). The Panel agrees and find accordingly. 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)).
The Panel finds that, in analyzing Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain names, the Panel evaluates the totality of the circumstances. 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).
Complainant asserts that Respondent has not made an active use of the disputed domain names since registering them. The Panel finds that a failure to make an active use of the confusingly similar disputed domain names is evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See 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 also argues that the registrant of the disputed domain names had knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the MARLBORO mark prior to registering the disputed domain names. The Panel finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the MARLBORO mark prior to registering the disputed domain names, and finds that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See 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).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <marlboro4.com> and <marlboro4.biz> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
John J. Upchurch, Panelist
Dated: September 11, 2012
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page