Cheng’s Enterprise, Inc. v. Young Park
Claim Number: FA1301001481445
Complainant is Cheng’s Enterprise, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Michael F. Autuoro of Fish & Richardson P.C., New York, USA. Respondent is Young Park (“Respondent”), New York, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <easyusa.com>, registered with Godaddy.com, LLC.
The undersigned certifies he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Houston Putnam Lowry, Chartered Arbitrator, as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on January 22, 2013; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on January 23, 2013.
On January 23, 2013, Godaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <easyusa.com> 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 January 24, 2013, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 13, 2013 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@easyusa.com. Also on January 24, 2013, 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 February 18, 2013, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Houston Putnam Lowry, Chartered Arbitrator, 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
Cheng’s Enterprise, Inc. (“Cheng’s”) was established in 1982 and has since earned a reputation as a respectable importer, exporter, and wholesaler in the footwear industry. Cheng’s well-known footwear brand, EASY USA, is widely recognized for its quality, comfort, and affordability. Cheng’s introduced its EASY USA footwear brand in 1995, and has used the distinctive EASY USA trademark continuously since that time. In addition to its longstanding common law rights in its EASY USA trademark, Cheng’s owns incontestable U.S. Registration No. 3,114,273 for the mark EASY USA in connection with footwear in Class 25, claiming a first use date of May 31, 1995. Cheng’s filed its application to register the EASY USA mark on July 25, 2005 and the mark became registered on July 11, 2006.
Respondent registered the Domain Name eleven years after Cheng’s began using its EASY USA mark, and only after Cheng’s filed its application to federally register the EASY USA mark and established its statutory priority.
FACTUAL AND LEGAL GROUNDS
This Complaint is based on the following factual and legal grounds:
Knowing of Cheng’s exclusive rights in the EASY USA trademark, Respondent registered and has been using the Domain Name to capitalize on the considerable goodwill associated with the well-known EASY USA brand and its associated footwear. Respondent uses the Domain Name to derive advertising and click-through revenue by displaying links that lead to websites advertising and promoting third party products also made in the USA, including footwear. The sole reason Respondent registered and is using the Domain Name is to generate advertising revenue for Respondent by creating a likelihood of confusion with Cheng’s EASY USA mark. In view of the fact that the Domain Name consists of Cheng’s well-known EASY USA mark, the public is likely to assume mistakenly that the Domain Name is in some way connected with or sponsored by Cheng’s.
Under Section 4(a) of the UDRP, an administrative proceeding resulting in the transfer of a domain name to the complainant is required where (i) the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark in which the complainant has rights, (ii) the domain name holder has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name, and (iii) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. As explained below, Cheng’s has made the necessary showing for the Domain Name to be transferred.
[a.] The Domain Name Registered By Respondent Is Confusingly Similar To a Mark In Which Cheng’s Has Rights
Cheng’s owns U.S. common law rights in its EASY USA trademark based on its long and continuous use of the well-known brand since the 1990s. As set forth above, Cheng’s also owns a U.S. trademark registration consisting of the EASY USA mark, which has become incontestable. An incontestable registration serves as “conclusive evidence of the validity of the registered mark and of registration of the mark, of the registrant’s ownership of the mark, and of the registrant’s exclusive right to use the registered mark in commerce.” 15 U.S.C. § 1115(b) (emphasis added). See also Reed Elsevier Inc. v. Domain Deluxe, FA 234414 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 18, 2004) (citing Park ‘N Fly, Inc. v. Dollar Park & Fly, Inc., 469 U.S. 189, 196 (1985) to confirm that incontestable registrations are conclusive evidence of the registrant’s exclusive right to use the mark). Without question, Cheng’s owns valuable rights in its well-known EASY USA trademark.
Respondent registered the domain name easyusa.com, which is comprised solely of Cheng’s EASY USA trademark and is virtually identical to Cheng’s websites at easy-usa.com and easyusafootwear.com. A generic top level domain such as “.com” does not distinguish the Domain Name from Cheng’s trademark, and thus, the Domain Name is identical to Cheng’s mark under Policy ¶4(a)(i). Hugh Jackman v. Peter Sun, FA 248716 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 10, 2004) (“Generic top-level domains are irrelevant in determining whether a domain name is identical to another’s mark.”); see also U.S. Smokeless Tobacco Mfg. Co. v. Tam A. Slamecka c/o TSlam Export, FA1203211 (Nat. Arb Forum July 11, 2008) (holding that the skoal.net domain name “is identical to Complainant’s SKOAL mark pursuant to Policy ¶4(a)(i)”); Towmaster, Inc. v. Hale, FA 973506 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 4, 2007) (“The panel finds that Respondent’s <bigtow.com> domain name is identical to Complainant’s BIG TOW mark pursuant to Policy ¶4(a)(i) because the disputed domain name contains Complainant’s mark in its entirety and adds the generic top-level domain “.com.”).
Thus, Section 4(a)(i) of the Policy is clearly satisfied, as the easyusa.com domain name is “identical or confusingly similar” to a trademark in which Cheng’s has rights.
[b.] Respondent Has No Rights or Legitimate Interests In the Domain Name
Respondent does not use the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; Respondent is not making a noncommercial fair use of the Domain Name; and Respondent has never been known as or referred to as “EASY USA.”
(i) Respondent’s use of the confusingly similar Domain Name to operate a commercial portal website that generates advertising and click-through revenue does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor is it a legitimate noncommercial or fair use
Respondent uses the Domain Name to attract Internet users to Respondent’s commercial website which is laden with revenue-generating advertisements and links. Using a domain name containing another party’s trademark to operate a portal website that generates advertising and click-through revenue is not a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a noncommercial fair use of the domain name. See Elsevier B.V. v. Domain Deluxe, FA 237520 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 24, 2004) (“Respondent uses the disputed domain name to host a portal website that’s principal purpose is to generate revenue via the use of advertisements….[S]uch an enterprise qualifies as neither a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name.”); see also Cabela’s, Inc. v. Privacy Ltd. Disclosed Agent for YOLAPT c/o Domain Admin, FA 301918 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 24, 2010) (holding that respondent’s use of a domain name that featured generic links to third-party websites was neither a bona fide offering of goods and services under Policy ¶4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶4(c)(iii)).
Respondent is not authorized or licensed by Cheng’s to use its EASY USA mark or any other trademarks. Despite that fact, Respondent registered the Domain Name and is using the corresponding website to direct consumers, through the use of paid advertising links, to a variety of commercial websites where they can purchase footwear and related products. Respondent’s website prominently features an “EASYUSA.COM” banner at the top of its page, falsely suggesting that the site is affiliated with or sponsored by Cheng’s. Thus, Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name under UDRP ¶4(c)(i).
(ii) Respondent is not known by the Domain Name
The WHOIS records for the Domain Name identify the Respondent as “Young Park.” Failure of the WHOIS records to indicate that Respondent is commonly known by the Domain Name suggests that Respondent is not known by EASY USA. See Tercent Inc. v. Yi, FA 139720 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 10, 2003); Nike, Inc. v. Ben Dias, FA 135016 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 7, 2002) (Respondent’s WHOIS contact information lists his name as ‘Ben Dias,’ and he does not appear to be ‘commonly known by’ the name NIKEBATS or <nikebats.com>. Given the distinctive nature of Complainant’s NIKE mark, along with its worldwide fame and notoriety, it would be nearly impossible for Respondent to ever claim to be ‘commonly known by’ any derivative of the NIKE mark, and the Panel finds Policy ¶4(c)(ii) inapplicable to Respondent.”). In the instant case, Respondent cannot credibly argue that he is commonly known by Cheng’s well-known EASY USA trademark. Indeed, the only logical conclusion is that Respondent uses such a designation solely to trade on the goodwill of the EASY USA mark and to cause a likelihood of confusion.
Given that Respondent is not using, and has never used, the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, that Respondent is not known by the EASY USA name, and that Respondent is not making and has not made a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the easyusa.com domain name, it is apparent that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, as defined in Paragraphs 4(c)(i)-(iii) of the UDRP. As such, Cheng’s has satisfied the second element of its complaint under UDRP ¶4(a)(ii).
[c.] Respondent Registered and Is Using the Domain Name In Bad Faith
Respondent is creating a likelihood of confusion for his own commercial gain; Respondent had knowledge of Cheng’s EASY USA mark before he registered the Domain Name; and Respondent does not normally use EASY USA to identify himself or his goods or services.
(i) Respondent is attempting for commercial gain to attract Internet users to commercial websites by creating a likelihood of confusion
Using a domain name comprised of another’s mark for the purpose of providing links to third party commercial websites constitutes bad faith. See Intel Corp. v. M. Macare a/k/a M. Macar, FA 660685 (Apr. 26, 2006) (“[T]he Panel infers that Respondent receives click-through fees for each consumer it diverts to these other websites[,] finds that Respondent is taking advantage of the confusing similarity between the Domain Name and Complainant’s marks in order to profit from the goodwill associated with the marks, and holds that Respondent’s registration and diversionary use of the disputed Domain Name constitutes bad faith . . .”); Cabela’s, Inc., supra (“Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed Domain Name to link Internet users to websites featuring third-party links, which are in competition with Complainant, constitutes a disruption of Complainant’s business and constitutes bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶4(b)(iii).”); Cricket Commcns, Inc. v. Domain Name Proxy, LLC aka Navigation Catalyst Systems, Inc., FA 324492 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 24, 2010) (“The Panel finds that the presence of competing pay-per-click links on Respondent’s websites resolving from the disputed Domain Name reveal that Respondent registered and uses the disputed Domain Name in bad faith according to Policy ¶4(b)(iii) in an effort to disrupt Complainant’s business.”).
This is especially the case where the links resolve to third party sites that sell goods and services that are related to or compete with the goods and services offered by the complainant. See Ritchie Bros. Auctioneers (Canada) Ltd. v. Stargateway, FA 616234 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 6, 2006) (finding for complainant and ordering transfer of domain name where “Respondent’s use of the ritchiebrother.com domain name in association with a website that offers similar products and services to those of Complainant suggests that Respondent is attempting to attract Internet users to its website through a likelihood of confusion”).
Here, it is quite clear that the sole purpose of Respondent’s Domain Name is to display revenue-generating links to commercial websites that offer competing footwear and related products under the pretext that they are somehow affiliated with the well-known EASY USA brand. Because Respondent uses a Domain Name that is identical to Cheng’s well-known EASY USA mark, Internet users are very likely to mistakenly access Respondent’s site when searching for Cheng’s, and once at the site, be confused as to the relationship between the parties. This is precisely Respondent’s intent, as each misguided click on the posted advertising links results in greater unjustified profits.
(ii) Respondent’s knowledge of the well-known EASY USA mark is evidence of bad faith
Respondent was at least constructively aware of Cheng’s and its well-known footwear brand EASY USA when Respondent registered the Domain Name. At the time Respondent registered the Domain Name, Cheng’s had been using its EASY USA mark for over eleven years, and its application to federally register the mark had already passed successfully through the opposition period. In fact, Cheng’s EASY USA mark matured to registration only six days after Respondent registered the domain name consisting of Cheng’s EASY USA trademark. See Victoria’s Secret v. Sherry Hardin, FA 96694 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 31, 2001) (“Registration with actual or constructive knowledge of Complainant’s marks is evidence of bad faith.”); Expressdata Corp. v. MSM Express Data Services, FA 94721 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 20, 2000) (noting that application for registration of a federal mark constitutes constructive notice to Respondent of Complainant’s prior use); Twindent AB v. Twinkles.com, FA 391308 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 11, 2005) (finding that “Complainant’s federal trademark application and its posting in the USPTO public database supports that Respondent chose the domain with and had a minimum constructive knowledge of Complainant’s rights,” and also noting that “despite constructive notice, the fact that Complainant’s application for a mark had not yet been registered at the USPTO is of no consequence”); see also British Broad. Corp. v. Renteria, D2000-0050 (WIPO Mar. 23, 2000) (noting that the Policy “does not distinguish between registered and unregistered trademarks and service marks in the context of abusive registration of domain names” and applying the Policy to “unregistered trademarks and service marks”).
Moreover, upon information and belief, before registering or using the easyusa.com domain name, Respondent had actual notice of the EASY USA trademark. In fact, Respondent uses easyusa.com to advertise and link to other commercial websites that offer footwear highly similar to and competitive with the footwear offered by Cheng’s under the EASY USA trademark. Given that Respondent advertises for third parties in the field of footwear, and given Cheng’s prominence in this field, Respondent must have had actual knowledge of Cheng’s EASY USA trademark. Indeed, since Respondent appears not to use EASY USA in association with any of its own products or services, it would have no reason to register and use easyusa.com unless it was aware of the goodwill associated with EASY USA and was attempting to usurp this goodwill. Moreover, the timing of Respondent’s Domain Name registration suggests that Respondent was monitoring Cheng’s trademark application and capitalized on the fact that the EASY USA brand was obviously valuable to Cheng’s, but that Cheng’s had not yet registered the corresponding domain name. As such, Respondent’s use and registration of easyusa.com with knowledge of Cheng’s EASY USA trademark evidences its bad faith.
(iii) Respondent’s use of a domain name he does not normally use is evidence of bad faith
Respondent’s bad faith is demonstrated by his acquisition and use of the domain name easyusa.com when Respondent does not normally use that domain name (or a corresponding name or mark) to identify his own company, goods, or services. Indeed, as detailed above, Respondent does not appear to sell his own products or services under EASY USA, nor is he known by the name EASY USA. It is clear that the registration and/or use by a respondent of a domain name which the respondent does not normally use to identify or describe itself is evidence of bad faith. See, e.g., The Chip Merchant, Inc. v. Blue Star Electronics, d/b/a Memory World, D2000-0474 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (respondent identified itself as Memory World, not Chip Merchant, and thus acted in bad faith by registering the domain names <chipmerchant.net>, <chipmerchant.com> and <thechipmerchant.net>).
For the foregoing reasons, Respondent registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith, as defined under Section 4(b)(iv) of the UDRP. Cheng’s has therefore satisfied the third and final element of its Complaint under the UDRP, Section 4(a)(iii), requiring Respondent to transfer the Domain Name to Cheng’s.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
(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.
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 Complainant to prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order cancelling or transferring a domain name:
(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 it owns USPTO registrations for the EASY USA mark, which it uses to market and sell footwear. See, e.g., Reg. No. 3,114,273 registered on July 11, 2006 (filed on July 25, 2005). Registration with the United States Patent & Trademark Office (“USPTO”) is sufficient evidence of rights in a mark under Policy ¶4(a)(i). Since the mark was registered (albeit subsequently to Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name), Complainant’s rights in the mark date back at least to the July 25, 2005 filing date of the trademark application. See Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Bonds, FA 873143 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 16, 2007) (finding that a USPTO trademark registration adequately demonstrates a complainant’s rights in a mark under Policy ¶4(a)(i)); 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”).
Complainant claims Respondent’s <easyusa.com> domain name is comprised solely of the EASY USA mark and the gTLD “.com.” Respondent deleted the spacing in the EASY USA mark in forming the disputed domain name and added a gTLD. Neither of these alterations to the mark’s spacing nor adding a gTLD adequately distinguishes the disputed domain name from Complainant’s mark. See Hannover Ruckversicherungs-AG v. Ryu, FA 102724 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 7, 2001) (finding <hannoverre.com> to be identical to HANNOVER RE, “as spaces are impermissible in domain names and a generic top-level domain such as ‘.com’ or ‘.net’ is required in domain names”). The <easyusa.com> domain name is identical to the EASY USA mark under Policy ¶4(a)(i).
The Panel finds Policy ¶4(a)(i) satisfied.
Complainant must first make a prima facie case Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶4(a)(ii). Then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it has 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 Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. The WHOIS record for the <easyusa.com> domain name identifies Respondent as “Young Park.” Complainant claims Respondent has never used the <easyusa.com> domain name in any way to suggest Respondent is known by the domain name. Respondent has done nothing to rebut this claim. See Educ. Broad. Corp. v. DomainWorks Inc., FA 882172 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 18, 2007) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <thirteen.com> domain name based on all evidence in the record, and the respondent did not counter this argument in its response). This Panel finds Respondent is not commonly known as the <easyusa.com> domain name under Policy ¶4(c)(ii).
Complainant claims Respondent’s use of the <easyusa.com> domain name does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name. Complainant believes Respondent is using the domain name to attract Internet users to a website with competing advertisements and hyperlinks generating revenue for Respondent (whether directly or indirectly). The disputed domain name presently resolves to a website consisting of competing hyperlinks. Previous panels have found a respondent using a disputed domain name solely for hosting of hyperlinks (whether or not related) fails to demonstrate a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed 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)). This Panel agrees and finds Respondent is not using the domain name in legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶4(c)(iii), nor is it using the domain name for a bona fide offering of goods and services under Policy ¶4(c)(i).
The Panel finds Policy ¶4(a)(ii) satisfied.
Complainant claims Respondent registered and is using the <easyusa.com> domain name in a bad faith attempt to confuse Internet users into associating the disputed domain name with Complainant. Complainant concludes Respondent then profits off of this confusion by receiving pay for click revenue (whether directly or indirectly). The domain name presently resolves to a website populated with hyperlinks to third-party websites offering products competing with Complainant. Previous panels have concluded it is an act of bad faith use and registration to promote a complainant’s competitors through hyperlinks. See Maricopa Cmty. Coll. Dist. v. College.com, LLC, FA 536190 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 22, 2005) (“The Panel infers that Respondent receives click-through fees for diverting Internet users to a competing website. Because Respondent’s domain name is identical to Complainant’s PHOENIX COLLEGE mark, Internet users accessing Respondent’s domain name may become confused as to Complainant’s affiliation with the resulting website. Thus, Respondent’s use of the <phoenixcollege.com> domain name constitutes bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶4(b)(iv).”). This Panel agrees and finds the <easyusa.com> domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith in violation of Policy ¶4(b)(iv).
Complainant finally argues Respondent had actual notice of Complainant’s rights in the EASY USA mark. Respondent included the entire EASY USA mark in its domain name and uses the domain name primarily for the purpose of redirecting Internet users to a number of websites competing with Complainant. Complainant claims Respondent is usurping Complainant’s goodwill, especially because Respondent registered the domain name a mere six days before the USPTO approved Complainant’s EASY USA mark. The Panel agrees with Complainant that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the mark prior to registering the disputed domain name. Actual knowledge is sufficient 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).
The Panel finds Policy ¶4(a)(iii) satisfied.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered the <easyusa.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Houston Putnam Lowry, Chartered Arbitrator, Panelist
Dated: Monday, February 25, 2013
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page