Bed Bath & Beyond Procurement Co. Inc. (n/k/a Liberty Procurement Co. Inc.) and its sister corporation Buy Buy Baby, Inc. (both wholly owned subsidiaries of Bed Bath & Beyond Inc.) v. Above.com Domain Privacy
Claim Number: FA1303001489117
Complainant is Bed Bath & Beyond Procurement Co. Inc. (n/k/a Liberty Procurement Co. Inc.) and its sister corporation Buy Buy Baby, Inc. (both wholly owned subsidiaries of Bed Bath & Beyond Inc.) (“Complainant”), represented by CitizenHawk, Inc., California, USA. Respondent is Above.com Domain Privacy (“Respondent”), Australia.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <bbedbathandbeyond.com>, <bebathandbeyond.com>, <bedbadhandbeyond.com>, <bedbanthandbeyond.com>, <bedbatbandbeyond.com>, <bedbatgandbeyond.com>, <bedbatgbeyond.com>, <bedbatghandbeyond.com>, <bedbathabndbeyond.com>, <bedbathanbbeyond.com>, <bedbathancbeyond.com>, <bedbathandabeyond.com>, <bedbathandbed.com>, <bedbathandbeeyond.com>, <bedbathandbejond.com>, <bedbathandbeoyond.com>, <bedbathandberyond.com>, <bedbathandbeyohnd.com>, <bedbathandbeyonbd.com>, <bed-bathandbeyond.com>, <bedbathandbeyondcom.com>, <bedbathandbeyondd.com>, <bedbathandbeyonde.com>, <bedbathandbeyondmatercard.com>, <bedbathandbeyondoutlet.com>, <bedbathandbeyondprintablecoupon.net>, <bedbathandbeyony.com>, <bedbathandbeypond.com>, <bedbathandbeytond.com>, <bedbathandbneyond.com>, <bedbathandbveyond.com>, <bedbathandsbeyond.com>, <bedbathandybeyond.com>, <bedbathanfbeyond.com>, <bedbathangbeyond.com>, <bedbathbeoyond.com>, <bedbathbeynod.com>, <bedbathbeyobd.com>, <bedbathbeyon.com>, <bedbathbeyonde.com>, <bedbathboyond.com>, <bedbathbryond.com>, <bedbathbyeond.com>, <bedbathdandbeyond.com>, <bedbathdbeyond.com>, <bedbathdeyond.com>, <bedbatnbeyond.com>, <bedbatrhandbeyond.com>, <beebathandbeyond.com>, <besdbathandbeyond.com>, <betbathbeyond.com>, <beybathandbeyond.com>, <buybubybaby.com>, <buybuybaby.net>, <nbedbathandbeyond.com>, <nedbathandbeyond.com>, <thebedbathandbeyond.com>, <wwwbuybuybaby.com>, and <wwwlbedbathandbeyond.com>, registered with Above.com Pty Ltd.
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.
The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.) as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on March 8, 2013; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on March 8, 2013.
On March 12, 2013, Above.com Pty Ltd. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <bbedbathandbeyond.com>, <bebathandbeyond.com>, <bedbadhandbeyond.com>, <bedbanthandbeyond.com>, <bedbatbandbeyond.com>, <bedbatgandbeyond.com>, <bedbatgbeyond.com>, <bedbatghandbeyond.com>, <bedbathabndbeyond.com>, <bedbathanbbeyond.com>, <bedbathancbeyond.com>, <bedbathandabeyond.com>, <bedbathandbed.com>, <bedbathandbeeyond.com>, <bedbathandbejond.com>, <bedbathandbeoyond.com>, <bedbathandberyond.com>, <bedbathandbeyohnd.com>, <bedbathandbeyonbd.com>, <bed-bathandbeyond.com>, <bedbathandbeyondcom.com>, <bedbathandbeyondd.com>, <bedbathandbeyonde.com>, <bedbathandbeyondmatercard.com>, <bedbathandbeyondoutlet.com>, <bedbathandbeyondprintablecoupon.net>, <bedbathandbeyony.com>, <bedbathandbeypond.com>, <bedbathandbeytond.com>, <bedbathandbneyond.com>, <bedbathandbveyond.com>, <bedbathandsbeyond.com>, <bedbathandybeyond.com>, <bedbathanfbeyond.com>, <bedbathangbeyond.com>, <bedbathbeoyond.com>, <bedbathbeynod.com>, <bedbathbeyobd.com>, <bedbathbeyon.com>, <bedbathbeyonde.com>, <bedbathboyond.com>, <bedbathbryond.com>, <bedbathbyeond.com>, <bedbathdandbeyond.com>, <bedbathdbeyond.com>, <bedbathdeyond.com>, <bedbatnbeyond.com>, <bedbatrhandbeyond.com>, <beebathandbeyond.com>, <besdbathandbeyond.com>, <betbathbeyond.com>, <beybathandbeyond.com>, <buybubybaby.com>, <buybuybaby.net>, <nbedbathandbeyond.com>, <nedbathandbeyond.com>, <thebedbathandbeyond.com>, <wwwbuybuybaby.com>, and <wwwlbedbathandbeyond.com> domain names are registered with Above.com Pty Ltd. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Above.com Pty Ltd. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Above.com Pty Ltd. 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 9, 2013, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 29, 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@bbedbathandbeyond.com, postmaster@bebathandbeyond.com, postmaster@bedbadhandbeyond.com, postmaster@bedbanthandbeyond.com, postmaster@bedbatbandbeyond.com, postmaster@bedbatgandbeyond.com, postmaster@bedbatgbeyond.com, postmaster@bedbatghandbeyond.com, postmaster@bedbathabndbeyond.com, postmaster@bedbathanbbeyond.com, postmaster@bedbathancbeyond.com, postmaster@bedbathandabeyond.com, postmaster@bedbathandbed.com, postmaster@bedbathandbeeyond.com, postmaster@bedbathandbejond.com, postmaster@bedbathandbeoyond.com, postmaster@bedbathandberyond.com, postmaster@bedbathandbeyohnd.com, postmaster@bedbathandbeyonbd.com, postmaster@bed-bathandbeyond.com, postmaster@bedbathandbeyondcom.com, postmaster@bedbathandbeyondd.com, postmaster@bedbathandbeyonde.com, postmaster@bedbathandbeyondmatercard.com, postmaster@bedbathandbeyondoutlet.com, postmaster@bedbathandbeyondprintablecoupon.net, postmaster@bedbathandbeyony.com, postmaster@bedbathandbeypond.com, postmaster@bedbathandbeytond.com, postmaster@bedbathandbneyond.com, postmaster@bedbathandbveyond.com, postmaster@bedbathandsbeyond.com, postmaster@bedbathandybeyond.com, postmaster@bedbathanfbeyond.com, postmaster@bedbathangbeyond.com, postmaster@bedbathbeoyond.com, postmaster@bedbathbeynod.com, postmaster@bedbathbeyobd.com, postmaster@bedbathbeyon.com, postmaster@bedbathbeyonde.com, postmaster@bedbathboyond.com, postmaster@bedbathbryond.com, postmaster@bedbathbyeond.com, postmaster@bedbathdandbeyond.com, postmaster@bedbathdbeyond.com, postmaster@bedbathdeyond.com, postmaster@bedbatnbeyond.com, postmaster@bedbatrhandbeyond.com, postmaster@beebathandbeyond.com, postmaster@besdbathandbeyond.com, postmaster@betbathbeyond.com, postmaster@beybathandbeyond.com, postmaster@buybubybaby.com, postmaster@buybuybaby.net, postmaster@nbedbathandbeyond.com, postmaster@nedbathandbeyond.com, postmaster@thebedbathandbeyond.com, postmaster@wwwbuybuybaby.com, and postmaster@wwwlbedbathandbeyond.com. Also on April 9, 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 May 6, 2013, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed the Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
Preliminary Issue: Multiple Complainants
There are two Complainants in this matter: Bed Bath & Beyond Procurement Co. Inc. and Buy Buy Baby, Inc. These entities are “sister corporations,” and each is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Bed Bath & Beyond Inc. Paragraph 3(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”) provides that “[a]ny person or entity may initiate an administrative proceeding by submitting a complaint.” The National Arbitration Forum’s Supplemental Rule 1(e) defines “The Party Initiating a Complaint Concerning a Domain Name Registration” as a “single person or entity claiming to have rights in the domain name, or multiple persons or entities who have a sufficient nexus who can each claim to have rights to all domain names listed in the Complaint.”
Previous panels have interpreted the Forum’s Supplemental Rule 1(e) to allow multiple parties to proceed as one party where they can show a sufficient link to each other. For example, in Vancouver Org. Comm. for the 2010 Olympic and Paralymic Games & Int’l Olympic Comm. v. Malik, FA 666119 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 12, 2006), the panel stated:
It has been accepted that it is permissible for two complainants to submit a single complaint if they can demonstrate a link between the two entities such as a relationship involving a license, a partnership or an affiliation that would establish the reason for the parties bringing the complaint as one entity.
In Tasty Baking, Co. & Tastykake Invs., Inc. v. Quality Hosting, FA 208854 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 28, 2003), the panel treated the two complainants as a single entity where both parties held rights in trademarks contained within the disputed domain names. Likewise, in Am. Family Health Srvs. Group, LLC v. Logan, FA 220049 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 6, 2004), the panel found a sufficient link between the complainants where there was a license between the parties regarding use of the TOUGHLOVE mark. Here, Complainant has established a sufficient nexus or link between the Complainants to treat them all as a single entity in this proceeding.
A. Complainant
1. Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)
a. Complainant has registered the BED BATH & BEYOND mark (e.g., Reg. No. 1,831,709 registered April 19, 1994) and the BUY BUY BABY mark (e.g., Reg. No. 2,171,479 registered July 7, 1998) with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”).
b. Respondent’s <bbedbathandbeyond.com>, <bebathandbeyond.com>, <bedbadhandbeyond.com>, <bedbanthandbeyond.com>, <bedbatbandbeyond.com>, <bedbatgandbeyond.com>, <bedbatgbeyond.com>, <bedbatghandbeyond.com>, <bedbathabndbeyond.com>, <bedbathanbbeyond.com>, <bedbathancbeyond.com>, <bedbathandabeyond.com>, <bedbathandbed.com>, <bedbathandbeeyond.com>, <bedbathandbejond.com>, <bedbathandbeoyond.com>, <bedbathandberyond.com>, <bedbathandbeyohnd.com>, <bedbathandbeyonbd.com>, <bed-bathandbeyond.com>, <bedbathandbeyondcom.com>, <bedbathandbeyondd.com>, <bedbathandbeyonde.com>, <bedbathandbeyondmatercard.com>, <bedbathandbeyondoutlet.com>, <bedbathandbeyondprintablecoupon.net>, <bedbathandbeyony.com>, <bedbathandbeypond.com>, <bedbathandbeytond.com>, <bedbathandbneyond.com>, <bedbathandbveyond.com>, <bedbathandsbeyond.com>, <bedbathandybeyond.com>, <bedbathanfbeyond.com>, <bedbathangbeyond.com>, <bedbathbeoyond.com>, <bedbathbeynod.com>, <bedbathbeyobd.com>, <bedbathbeyon.com>, <bedbathbeyonde.com>, <bedbathboyond.com>, <bedbathbryond.com>, <bedbathbyeond.com>, <bedbathdandbeyond.com>, <bedbathdbeyond.com>, <bedbathdeyond.com>, <bedbatnbeyond.com>, <bedbatrhandbeyond.com>, <beebathandbeyond.com>, <besdbathandbeyond.com>, <betbathbeyond.com>, <beybathandbeyond.com>, <nbedbathandbeyond.com>, <nedbathandbeyond.com>, <thebedbathandbeyond.com>, and <wwwlbedbathandbeyond.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s BED BATH & BEYOND mark.
c. Respondent’s <buybubybaby.com>, <buybuybaby.net>, and <wwwbuybuybaby.com> domain names are identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s BUY BUY BABY mark.
2. Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)
a. Respondent has not been commonly known by the disputed domain names.
b. Respondent is not sponsored by or legitimately affiliated with Complainant in any way, nor has Complainant given Respondent permission to use Complainant's mark in a domain name.
c. Respondent’s <bedbathdandbeyond.com> domain name resolves to an inactive site.
d. Respondent is using the remainder of the disputed domain names to redirect unsuspecting Internet users to a website featuring generic links to third-party websites, some of which directly compete with Complainant's business. Presumably, Respondent receives pay-per-click fees from these linked websites.
3. Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)
a. Respondent has engaged in typosquatting behavior.
b. The links on Respondent’s site divert potential customers away from Complainant to third-party websites, which disrupts Complainant’s business.
c. Respondent is using the disputed domain names to attract and mislead consumers for its own profit.
4. Respondent’s registrations
a. Respondent registered the <bedbathbeyon.com> domain name on November 9, 2005.
b. Respondent registered the <bebathandbeyond.com> domain name on November 26, 2005.
c. Respondent registered the <bedbathancbeyond.com> domain name on February 16, 2007.
d. Respondent registered the <wwwlbedbathandbeyond.com> domain name on July 1, 2007.
e. Respondent registered the <bedbatghandbeyond.com> domain name on October 1, 2007.
f. Respondent registered the <bedbatgandbeyond.com> domain name on October 10, 2007.
g. Respondent registered the <bedbathandbeypond.com> domain name on November 8, 2007.
h. Respondent registered the <bedbathandbeoyond.com> domain name on January 9, 2008.
i. Respondent registered the <bedbathandybeyond.com> domain name on January 10, 2008.
j. Respondent registered the <bedbathandbeyondd.com> domain name on February 12, 2008.
k. Respondent registered the <bbedbathandbeyond.com> and <bedbathandbeyonde.com> domain names on February 13, 2008.
l. Respondent registered the <beybathandbeyond.com> domain name on February 14, 2008.
m. Respondent registered the <bedbathandbeeyond.com> domain name on February 15, 2008.
n. Respondent registered the <bedbathanfbeyond.com> domain name on March 24, 2008.
o. Respondent registered the <bedbathbeynod.com> domain name on April 14, 2008.
p. Respondent registered the <buybuybaby.net> domain name on June 4, 2008.
q. Respondent registered the <nedbathandbeyond.com> domain name on September 5, 2008.
r. Respondent registered the <bedbathbeoyond.com> domain name on November 8, 2008.
s. Respondent registered the <bedbatbandbeyond.com>, <bedbathandbeytond.com>, <bedbathdandbeyond.com>, and <bedbatrhandbeyond.com> domain names on March 8, 2009.
t. Respondent registered the <bedbathandsbeyond.com> domain name on March 9, 2009.
u. Respondent registered the <buybubybaby.com> domain name on March 13, 2009.
v. Respondent registered the <betbathbeyond.com> domain name on March 17, 2009.
w. Respondent registered the <bedbanthandbeyond.com> domain name on March 18, 2009.
x. Respondent registered the <bedbathanbbeyond.com> and <thebedbathandbeyond.com> domain names on March 20, 2009.
y. Respondent registered the <bedbathandbveyond.com>, <bedbathboyond.com>, <bedbathbyeond.com>, <bedbathdbeyond.com>, and <beebathandbeyond.com> domain names on March 22, 2009.
z. Respondent registered the <bedbathbeyobd.com> domain name on March 25, 2009.
aa. Respondent registered the <bedbathdeyond.com> domain name on March 26, 2009.
bb. Respondent registered the <bedbathandbejond.com> domain name on March 27, 2009.
cc. Respondent registered the <bedbathandbeyonbd.com> and <bedbathbeyonde.com> domain names on April 1, 2009.
dd. Respondent registered the <bedbathabndbeyond.com> domain name on April 19, 2009.
ee. Respondent registered the <bedbathandbed.com> domain name on May 2, 2009.
ff. Respondent registered the <bedbathandbeyony.com> and <besdbathandbeyond.com> domain names on May 6, 2009.
gg. Respondent registered the <nbedbathandbeyond.com> domain name on May 7, 2009.
hh. Respondent registered the <bedbathandberyond.com> domain name on July 17, 2009.
ii. Respondent registered the <wwwbuybuybaby.com> domain August 28, 2009.
jj. Respondent registered the <bedbathandbeyohnd.com> domain name on October 5, 2009.
kk. Respondent registered the <bedbathandabeyond.com> domain name on November 14, 2009.
ll. Respondent registered the <bedbathbryond.com> and <bedbatnbeyond.com> domain names on November 25, 2009.
mm. Respondent registered the <bedbatgbeyond.com> domain name on November 28, 2009.
nn. Respondent registered the <bedbathandbneyond.com> domain name on August 4, 2011.
oo. Respondent registered the <bedbathangbeyond.com> domain name on August 25, 2011.
pp. Respondent registered the <bed-bathandbeyond.com> domain name on December 13, 2011.
qq. Respondent registered the <bedbathandbeyondcom.com> and <bedbathandbeyondoutlet.com> domain names on January 7, 2012.
rr. Respondent registered the <bedbathandbeyondmatercard.com> domain name on April 10, 2012.
ss. Respondent registered the <bedbadhandbeyond.com> domain name on June 16, 2012.
tt. Respondent registered the <bedbathandbeyondprintablecoupon.net> domain name on July 3, 2012.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant has registered the BED BATH & BEYOND mark (e.g., Reg. No. 1,831,709 registered April 19, 1994) and the BUY BUY BABY mark (e.g., Reg. No. 2,171,479 registered July 7, 1998) with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”).
Respondent registered all the disputed domain names long after Complainant registered the BED BATH & BEYOND and the BUY BUY BABY marks.
Respondent’s <bedbathdandbeyond.com> domain name resolves to an inactive site. Respondent is using the remainder of the disputed domain names to redirect unsuspecting Internet users to a website featuring generic links to third-party websites, some of which directly compete with Complainant's business. Presumably, Respondent receives pay-per-click fees from these linked websites. Respondent has engaged in typosquatting.
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’s registration of the BED BATH & BEYOND mark and the BUY BUY BABY mark with the USPTO is sufficient to confer rights in the marks under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). 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). Complainant has established rights in the BED BATH & BEYOND and BUY BUY BABY marks for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), notwithstanding the fact that Respondent operates in a country other than the United States. See Koninklijke KPN N.V. v. Telepathy Inc., D2001-0217 (WIPO May 7, 2001) (finding that the Policy does not require that the mark be registered in the country in which the respondent operates and it is sufficient that the complainant can demonstrate a mark in some jurisdiction).
Respondent’s <bbedbathandbeyond.com>, <bebathandbeyond.com>, <bedbadhandbeyond.com>, <bedbanthandbeyond.com>, <bedbatbandbeyond.com>, <bedbatgandbeyond.com>, <bedbatgbeyond.com>, <bedbatghandbeyond.com>, <bedbathabndbeyond.com>, <bedbathanbbeyond.com>, <bedbathancbeyond.com>, <bedbathandabeyond.com>, <bedbathandbed.com>, <bedbathandbeeyond.com>, <bedbathandbejond.com>, <bedbathandbeoyond.com>, <bedbathandberyond.com>, <bedbathandbeyohnd.com>, <bedbathandbeyonbd.com>, <bed-bathandbeyond.com>, <bedbathandbeyondcom.com>, <bedbathandbeyondd.com>, <bedbathandbeyonde.com>, <bedbathandbeyondmatercard.com>, <bedbathandbeyondoutlet.com>, <bedbathandbeyondprintablecoupon.net>, <bedbathandbeyony.com>, <bedbathandbeypond.com>, <bedbathandbeytond.com>, <bedbathandbneyond.com>, <bedbathandbveyond.com>, <bedbathandsbeyond.com>, <bedbathandybeyond.com>, <bedbathanfbeyond.com>, <bedbathangbeyond.com>, <bedbathbeoyond.com>, <bedbathbeynod.com>, <bedbathbeyobd.com>, <bedbathbeyon.com>, <bedbathbeyonde.com>, <bedbathboyond.com>, <bedbathbryond.com>, <bedbathbyeond.com>, <bedbathdandbeyond.com>, <bedbathdbeyond.com>, <bedbathdeyond.com>, <bedbatnbeyond.com>, <bedbatrhandbeyond.com>, <beebathandbeyond.com>, <besdbathandbeyond.com>, <betbathbeyond.com>, <beybathandbeyond.com>, <nbedbathandbeyond.com>, <nedbathandbeyond.com>, <thebedbathandbeyond.com>, and <wwwlbedbathandbeyond.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s BED BATH & BEYOND mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Each of these disputed domain names contains either the addition of one extra character, the removal of one character, one character which is incorrect, or two juxtaposed characters, as compared to Complainant’s marks. Each of the <bedbathandbeyondmatercard.com>, <bedbathandbeyondoutlet.com>, <bedbathandbeyondprintablecoupon.net>, and <thebedbathandbeyond.com> domain names adds a generic term to Complainant’s mark. Each disputed domain name additionally omits the spaces between words in Complainant’s mark. See Victoria’s Secret v. Zuccarini, FA 95762 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 18, 2000) (finding that, by misspelling words and adding letters to words, a respondent does not create a distinct mark but nevertheless renders the domain name confusingly similar to the complainant’s marks); see also Google Inc. v. Jon G., FA 106084 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 26, 2002) (finding <googel.com> to be confusingly similar to the complainant’s GOOGLE mark and noting that “[t]he transposition of two letters does not create a distinct mark capable of overcoming a claim of confusing similarity, as the result reflects a very probable typographical error”); see also Am. Express Co. v. MustNeed.com, FA 257901 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 7, 2004) (finding the respondent’s <amextravel.com> domain name confusingly similar to Complainant’s AMEX mark because the “mere addition of a generic or descriptive word to a registered mark does not negate” a finding of confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)); see also Bond & Co. Jewelers, Inc. v. Tex. Int’l Prop. Assocs., FA 937650 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 30, 2007) (finding that the elimination of spaces between terms and the addition of a gTLD do not establish distinctiveness from the complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)).
Complainant contends that the <buybubybaby.com>, <buybuybaby.net>, and <wwwbuybuybaby.com> domain names are confusingly similar to its BUY BUY BABY mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Each of these domains omits the spaces between words in Complainant’s mark while affixing a generic top-level domain (“gTLD”). The <wwwbuybuybaby.com> domain name adds the prefix “www” and the <buybubybaby.com> domain name adds an extra “b” to Complainant’s mark. These alterations are insufficient to create a unique, non-infringing domain. See Am. Int’l Grp., 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.”); see also Bank of Am. Corp. v. InterMos, FA 95092 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 1, 2000) (finding that the respondent’s domain name <wwwbankofamerica.com> is confusingly similar to the complainant’s registered trademark BANK OF AMERICA because it “takes advantage of a typing error (eliminating the period between the www and the domain name) that users commonly make when searching on the Internet”); see also Amazon.com, Inc. v. Ikhizamah, D2002-1168 (WIPO Mar. 17, 2003) (holding that the <zamazon.com> domain name was confusingly similar to the complainant’s AMAZON.COM mark). The Panel finds that the <buybubybaby.com> domain name is identical and the <buybuybaby.net> and <wwwbuybuybaby.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s BUY BUY BABY mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
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).
Complainant alleges that Respondent has not been commonly known by the disputed domain names. Complainant further alleges that Respondent is not sponsored by or legitimately affiliated with Complainant in any way, nor has Complainant given Respondent permission to use Complainant's mark in a domain name. The WHOIS information for the disputed domain names identifies the domain name registrant as “Above.com Domain Privacy.” The Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Reese v. Morgan, FA 917029 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 5, 2007) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <lilpunk.com> domain name as there was no evidence in the record showing that the respondent was commonly known by that domain name, including the WHOIS information as well as the complainant’s assertion that it did not authorize or license the respondent’s use of its mark in a domain name).
Complainant alleges that Respondent’s <bedbathdandbeyond.com> domain name currently resolves to an inactive website. A respondent’s inactive holding of a disputed domain name shows a lack of rights or legitimate interests in that domain. See George Weston Bakeries Inc. v. McBroom, FA 933276 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 25, 2007) (finding that the respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in a domain name under either Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) where it failed to make any active use of the domain name). Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the <bedbathdandbeyond.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Respondent is using the other disputed domain names to redirect unsuspecting Internet users to a website featuring generic links to third-party websites, some of which directly compete with Complainant's business. Respondent presumably receives pay-per-click fees from these linked websites. The Panel finds that Respondent is not using the disputed domain names in conjunction with 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 H-D Michigan Inc. v. Buell, FA 1106640 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 2, 2008) (finding that, because the “[r]espondent’s disputed domain names resolve to a website featuring a series of advertising links to various third-parties, many of whom offer products and services in direct competition with those offered under [the complainant’s] mark,” the respondent is not using the disputed domain names for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use).
The links on Respondent’s sites divert potential customers away from Complainant to third-party websites, which disrupts Complainant’s business. Respondent’s provision of hyperlinks at the disputed domain names which market products and services that compete with those offered by Complainant establishes the requisite degree of competition between the parties to support a finding of bad faith disruption under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See Compania Mexicana de Aviacion, S.A. de C.V. v. Bigfoot Ventures LLC, FA 1195961 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 14, 2008) (“Respondent’s disputed domain name resolves to a parking website which provides click through revenue to Respondent and which displays links to travel-related products and services that directly compete with Complainant’s business. Accordingly, Respondent’s competing use of the disputed domain name is additional evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).”).
Respondent’s use of all of the confusingly similar disputed domain names, except the <bedbathdandbeyond.com> domain name, to attract and mislead consumers for its own profit in bad faith through collection of pay-per-click revenues constitutes bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Zee TV USA, Inc. v. Siddiqi, FA 721969 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 18, 2006) (finding that the respondent engaged in bad faith registration and use by using a domain name that was confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark to offer links to third-party websites that offered services similar to those offered by the complainant).
Respondent’s <bedbathdandbeyond.com> domain name currently resolves to an inactive site. Respondent’s inactive use of the domain shows bad faith 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).
Finally, Respondent’s registration of all of the disputed domain names constitutes typosquatting. Therefore, Respondent has registered and used the typosquatted domains in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Computerized Sec. Sys., Inc. v. Hu, FA 157321 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 23, 2003) (finding that the respondent engaged in typosquatting, which is evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)).
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 <bbedbathandbeyond.com>, <bebathandbeyond.com>, <bedbadhandbeyond.com>, <bedbanthandbeyond.com>, <bedbatbandbeyond.com>, <bedbatgandbeyond.com>, <bedbatgbeyond.com>, <bedbatghandbeyond.com>, <bedbathabndbeyond.com>, <bedbathanbbeyond.com>, <bedbathancbeyond.com>, <bedbathandabeyond.com>, <bedbathandbed.com>, <bedbathandbeeyond.com>, <bedbathandbejond.com>, <bedbathandbeoyond.com>, <bedbathandberyond.com>, <bedbathandbeyohnd.com>, <bedbathandbeyonbd.com>, <bed-bathandbeyond.com>, <bedbathandbeyondcom.com>, <bedbathandbeyondd.com>, <bedbathandbeyonde.com>, <bedbathandbeyondmatercard.com>, <bedbathandbeyondoutlet.com>, <bedbathandbeyondprintablecoupon.net>, <bedbathandbeyony.com>, <bedbathandbeypond.com>, <bedbathandbeytond.com>, <bedbathandbneyond.com>, <bedbathandbveyond.com>, <bedbathandsbeyond.com>, <bedbathandybeyond.com>, <bedbathanfbeyond.com>, <bedbathangbeyond.com>, <bedbathbeoyond.com>, <bedbathbeynod.com>, <bedbathbeyobd.com>, <bedbathbeyon.com>, <bedbathbeyonde.com>, <bedbathboyond.com>, <bedbathbryond.com>, <bedbathbyeond.com>, <bedbathdandbeyond.com>, <bedbathdbeyond.com>, <bedbathdeyond.com>, <bedbatnbeyond.com>, <bedbatrhandbeyond.com>, <beebathandbeyond.com>, <besdbathandbeyond.com>, <betbathbeyond.com>, <beybathandbeyond.com>, <buybubybaby.com>, <buybuybaby.net>, <nbedbathandbeyond.com>, <nedbathandbeyond.com>, <thebedbathandbeyond.com>, <wwwbuybuybaby.com>, and <wwwlbedbathandbeyond.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.), Panelist
Dated: May 20, 2013
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page