Xerox Corporation v. CopiersCopiers.com / CopiersCopiers
Claim Number: FA1303001489159
Complainant is Xerox Corporation (“Complainant”), represented by Steven M. Levy, Pennsylvania, USA. Respondent is CopiersCopiers.com / CopiersCopiers (“Respondent”), Canada.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <xerox510.com>,<xerox6030.com>,<xerox6050.com>,<xerox6204.com>,<xerox6279.com>,<xerox721.com>,<xerox8254e.com>,<xerox8825.com>,<xerox8830.com>,<xerox8850.com>,<xeroxdc240.com>,<xeroxdc242.com>,<xeroxdc250.com>,<xeroxdc252.com>,<xeroxdc260.com>,<xeroxlargeformat.com>,<copiersxerox.com>,<copiersxerox.net>,<copierxerox.com>,<copierxerox.net>,<largeformatxerox.com>,<xerox510.net>,<xerox6030.net>,<xerox6050.net>,<xerox6204.net>,<xerox6279.net>,<xerox721.net>,<xerox8254e.net>,<xerox8265.net>,<xerox8390.net>,<xerox8825.net>,<xerox8830.net>,<xerox8850.net>,<xerox8855.net>,<xeroxcopier.net>,<xeroxdc240.net>,<xeroxdc242.net>,<xeroxdc250.net>,<xeroxdc252.net>,<xeroxdc260.net>,<xeroxmax200.com>,<xeroxmax200.net>,<xeroxphotocopier.net>,<xeroxphotocopiers.net>,<xeroxplotter.com>,<zeroxprinter.com>,<zeroxprinters.com>,<xerox8265.com>,<xerox8390.com>, and <xerox8855.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.
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.
Bruce E. Meyerson as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on March 11, 2013; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on March 11, 2013.
On March 11, 2013, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <xerox510.com>,<xerox6030.com>,<xerox6050.com>,<xerox6204.com>,<xerox6279.com>,<xerox721.com>,<xerox8254e.com>,<xerox8825.com>,<xerox8830.com>,<xerox8850.com>,<xeroxdc240.com>,<xeroxdc242.com>,<xeroxdc250.com>,<xeroxdc252.com>,<xeroxdc260.com>,<xeroxlargeformat.com>,<copiersxerox.com>,<copiersxerox.net>,<copierxerox.com>,<copierxerox.net>,<largeformatxerox.com>,<xerox510.net>,<xerox6030.net>,<xerox6050.net>,<xerox6204.net>,<xerox6279.net>,<xerox721.net>,<xerox8254e.net>,<xerox8265.net>,<xerox8390.net>,<xerox8825.net>,<xerox8830.net>,<xerox8850.net>,<xerox8855.net>,<xeroxcopier.net>,<xeroxdc240.net>,<xeroxdc242.net>,<xeroxdc250.net>,<xeroxdc252.net>,<xeroxdc260.net>,<xeroxmax200.com>,<xeroxmax200.net>,<xeroxphotocopier.net>,<xeroxphotocopiers.net>,<xeroxplotter.com>,<zeroxprinter.com>,<zeroxprinters.com>,<xerox8265.com>,<xerox8390.com>,<xerox8855.com> 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 ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On March 14, 2013, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 3, 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@xerox510.com, postmaster@xerox6030.com, postmaster@xerox6050.com, postmaster@xerox6204.com, postmaster@xerox6279.com, postmaster@xerox721.com, postmaster@xerox8254e.com, postmaster@xerox8825.com, postmaster@xerox8830.com, postmaster@xerox8850.com, postmaster@xeroxdc240.com, postmaster@xeroxdc242.com, postmaster@xeroxdc250.com, postmaster@xeroxdc252.com, postmaster@xeroxdc260.com, postmaster@xeroxlargeformat.com, postmaster@copiersxerox.com, postmaster@copiersxerox.net, postmaster@copierxerox.com, postmaster@copierxerox.net, postmaster@largeformatxerox.com, postmaster@xerox510.net, postmaster@xerox6030.net, postmaster@xerox6050.net, postmaster@xerox6204.net, postmaster@xerox6279.net, postmaster@xerox721.net, postmaster@xerox8254e.net, postmaster@xerox8265.net, postmaster@xerox8390.net, postmaster@xerox8825.net, postmaster@xerox8830.net, postmaster@xerox8850.net, postmaster@xerox8855.net, postmaster@xeroxcopier.net, postmaster@xeroxdc240.net, postmaster@xeroxdc242.net, postmaster@xeroxdc250.net, postmaster@xeroxdc252.net, postmaster@xeroxdc260.net, postmaster@xeroxmax200.com, postmaster@xeroxmax200.net, postmaster@xeroxphotocopier.net, postmaster@xeroxphotocopiers.net, postmaster@xeroxplotter.com, postmaster@zeroxprinter.com, postmaster@zeroxprinters.com, postmaster@xerox8265.com, postmaster@xerox8390.com, and postmaster@xerox8855.com. Also on March 14, 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 April 10, 2013, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Bruce E. Meyerson 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
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant holds trademark rights for the XEROX mark. Respondent’s <xerox510.com>,<xerox6030.com>,<xerox6050.com>,<xerox6204.com>,<xerox6279.com>,<xerox721.com>,<xerox8254e.com>,<xerox8825.com>,<xerox8830.com>,<xerox8850.com>,<xeroxdc240.com>,<xeroxdc242.com>,<xeroxdc250.com>,<xeroxdc252.com>,<xeroxdc260.com>,<xeroxlargeformat.com>,<copiersxerox.com>,<copiersxerox.net>,<copierxerox.com>,<copierxerox.net>,<largeformatxerox.com>,<xerox510.net>,<xerox6030.net>,<xerox6050.net>,<xerox6204.net>,<xerox6279.net>,<xerox721.net>,<xerox8254e.net>,<xerox8265.net>,<xerox8390.net>,<xerox8825.net>,<xerox8830.net>,<xerox8850.net>,<xerox8855.net>,<xeroxcopier.net>,<xeroxdc240.net>,<xeroxdc242.net>,<xeroxdc250.net>,<xeroxdc252.net>,<xeroxdc260.net>,<xeroxmax200.com>,<xeroxmax200.net>,<xeroxphotocopier.net>,<xeroxphotocopiers.net>,<xeroxplotter.com>,<zeroxprinter.com>,<zeroxprinters.com>,<xerox8265.com>,<xerox8390.com>, and <xerox8855.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s XEROX mark. Complainant has established that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the use of the foregoing domain names, and that Respondent registered and uses the domain names 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 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 XEROX trademark pursuant to its multiple registrations with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 525,717 registered May 30, 1950). A complainant’s registration of a mark with the USPTO is sufficient to confer rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Vivendi Universal Games v. XBNetVentures Inc., FA 198803 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 11, 2003) (“Complainant's federal trademark registrations [with the USPTO] establish Complainant's rights in the BLIZZARD mark.”). Further, a complainant need not register its mark in the country of a respondent to demonstrate rights in the mark. 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). Therefore the Panel finds that Complainant has established rights in the XEROX mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant claims that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s XEROX mark. Complainant notes that each disputed domain name incorporates Complainant’s mark in its entirety, with only the addition of generic terms such as “copiers“, “photocopier,” “printer,” “plotter” or “largeformat” after or before Complainant’s XEROX mark. In many cases, Complainant notes, the disputed domain names merely add the model number of one of Complainant’s products, such as “510,” “6204”, and “8850.” The addition of a generic word or term insufficient to distinguish a disputed domain name from a complainant’s mark. See Arthur Guinness Son & Co. (Dublin) Ltd. v. Healy/BOSTH, D2001-0026 (WIPO Mar. 23, 2001) (finding confusing similarity where the domain name in dispute contains the identical mark of the complainant combined with a generic word or term). The addition of a generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) such as “.com” or “.net” is irrelevant to a confusing similarity analysis. See Trip Network Inc. v. Alviera, FA 914943 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 27, 2007) (concluding that the affixation of a gTLD to a domain name is irrelevant to a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis). Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent’s <xerox510.com>,<xerox6030.com>,<xerox6050.com>,<xerox6204.com>,<xerox6279.com>,<xerox721.com>,<xerox8254e.com>,<xerox8825.com>,<xerox8830.com>,<xerox8850.com>,<xeroxdc240.com>,<xeroxdc242.com>,<xeroxdc250.com>,<xeroxdc252.com>,<xeroxdc260.com>,<xeroxlargeformat.com>,<copiersxerox.com>,<copiersxerox.net>,<copierxerox.com>,<copierxerox.net>,<largeformatxerox.com>,<xerox510.net>,<xerox6030.net>,<xerox6050.net>,<xerox6204.net>,<xerox6279.net>,<xerox721.net>,<xerox8254e.net>,<xerox8265.net>,<xerox8390.net>,<xerox8825.net>,<xerox8830.net>,<xerox8850.net>,<xerox8855.net>,<xeroxcopier.net>,<xeroxdc240.net>,<xeroxdc242.net>,<xeroxdc250.net>,<xeroxdc252.net>,<xeroxdc260.net>,<xeroxmax200.com>,<xeroxmax200.net>,<xeroxphotocopier.net>,<xeroxphotocopiers.net>,<xeroxplotter.com>,<zeroxprinter.com>,<zeroxprinters.com>,<xerox8265.com>,<xerox8390.com>, and <xerox8855.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s XEROX mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant alleges that Respondent holds no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. This allegation must be supported with a prima facie showing by Complainant under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). After a complainant successfully makes a prima facie case, a respondent is faced with the burden of proving it does have rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. In Swedish Match UK Ltd. v. Admin, Domain, FA 873137 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 13, 2007), the panel held that when a complainant produces a prima facie case, the burden of proof then shifts to the respondent to demonstrate its rights or legitimate interests in the domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c). See also Compagnie Generale des Matieres Nucleaires v. Greenpeace Int’l, D2001-0376 (WIPO May 14, 2001) (“For the purposes of this sub paragraph, however, it is sufficient for the Complainant to show a prima facie case and the burden of proof is then shifted on to the shoulders of Respondent. In those circumstances, the common approach is for respondents to seek to bring themselves within one of the examples of paragraph 4(c) or put forward some other reason why they can fairly be said to have a relevant right or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name in question.”). The Panel holds that Complainant has made a prima facie case.
Complainant claims that Respondent is not commonly known by any of the disputed domain names and has not established rights or legitimate interests under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). The WHOIS information for the disputed domain names lists “CopiersCopiers.com / CopiersCopiers” as the registrant. Nominally unsupportive WHOIS information is strong evidence that a respondent is not commonly known by a disputed domain name. 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 Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) based on the WHOIS information and other evidence in the record). Therefore, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names.
To facilitate the discussion of the following two elements of the Policy, the disputed domain names have been divided into three groupings pertaining to the resolving websites. Those groups are as follows:
“Group 1”: <xerox510.com>,<xerox6030.com>,<xerox6050.com>,<xerox6204.com>,<xerox6279.com>,<xerox721.com>,<xerox8254e.com>,<xerox8825.com>,<xerox8830.com>,<xerox8850.com>,<xeroxdc240.com>,<xeroxdc242.com>,<xeroxdc250.com>,<xeroxdc252.com>,<xeroxdc260.com>, and <xeroxlargeformat.com>.
“Group 2”: <copiersxerox.com>,<copiersxerox.net>,<copierxerox.com>,<copierxerox.net>,<largeformatxerox.com>,<xerox510.net>,<xerox6030.net>,<xerox6050.net>,<xerox6204.net>,<xerox6279.net>,<xerox721.net>,<xerox8254e.net>,<xerox8265.net>,<xerox8390.net>,<xerox8825.net>,<xerox8830.net>,<xerox8850.net>,<xerox8855.net>,<xeroxcopier.net>,<xeroxdc240.net>,<xeroxdc242.net>,<xeroxdc250.net>,<xeroxdc252.net>,<xeroxdc260.net>,<xeroxmax200.com>,<xeroxmax200.net>,<xeroxphotocopier.net>,<xeroxphotocopiers.net>,<xeroxplotter.com>,<zeroxprinter.com>, and <zeroxprinters.com>
“Group 3”: <xerox8265.com>,<xerox8390.com>, and <xerox8855.com>.
With respect to the disputed domain names in Group 1, Complainant notes that the disputed domain names resolve to various pages referring to Respondent’s “CopiersCopiers” business and purporting to sell various copying products, including Complainant’s brand and those of competitors. Complainant argues that this is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and 4(c)(iii). The use of domain names to offer products that compete with a complainant is not a bona fide offering or legitimate use. See Coryn Group, Inc. v. Media Insight, FA 198959 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 5, 2003) (finding that the respondent was not using the domain names for a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use because the respondent used the names to divert Internet users to a website that offered services that competed with those offered by the complainant under its marks). Therefore, the Panel holds that Respondent has not established rights or legitimate interest in the Group 1 domain names pursuant to Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and 4(c)(iii).
In regards to the disputed domain names in Group 2, Complainant claims that the disputed domain names resolve to pay-per-click link directories, featuring links to other websites, many of which compete with Complainant. The display of competing hyperlinks demonstrates a lack of a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See Compania Mexicana de Aviacion, S.A. de C.V. v. Bigfoot Ventures LLC, FA 1195961 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 14, 2008) (holding that the respondent had not demonstrated a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use when “the website resolving from the disputed domain name displays links to travel products and services, which directly compete with Complainant’s business”). Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent has not established rights or legitimate interests in the Group 2 domain names pursuant to Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and 4(c)(iii).
Regarding the Group 3 domain names, Complainant notes that the disputed domain names do not resolve to any active web page. Because non-use does not demonstrate a bona fide offering or a legitimate use, the Panel holds that Respondent has not established rights or legitimate interests in the Group 3 domain names under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and 4(c)(iii). 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).
The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Complainant argues that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith. Complainant claims Respondent is using the Group 1 disputed domain names to resolve to Respondent’s web page where it sells Complainant’s products as well as those of Complainant’s competitors. Complainant argues that this is an intentional attraction for commercial gain by creating confusion with Complainant’s XEROX mark, and is evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). The sale of complainant’s products and of competing products is evidence of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) bad faith. See Fanuc Ltd v. Mach. Control Servs., FA 93667 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 13, 2000) (finding that the respondent violated Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark by using a domain name identical to the complainant’s mark to sell the complainant’s products); see also MathForum.com, LLC v. Weiguang Huang, D2000-0743 (WIPO Aug. 17, 2000) (finding bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the respondent registered a domain name confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark and the domain name was used to host a commercial website that offered similar services offered by the complainant under its mark). In light of this precedent, the Panel holds that the Group 1 disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
Complainant also argues that the disputed domain names in Group B were registered and are being used in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). Complainant claims that the disputed domain names resolve to pages displaying links to products and services that compete with Complainant, for which Respondent likely receives compensation based on the number of hits each website receives. Such use also constitutes bad faith. See Ass’n of Junior Leagues Int’l Inc. v. This Domain Name My Be For Sale, FA 857581 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 4, 2007) (holding that the respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to maintain a pay-per-click site displaying links unrelated to the complainant and to generate click-through revenue suggested bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)). Therefore, the Panel holds that Respondent registered and is using the Group B disputed domain names in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
Complainant also argues that the Group C domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith, as evidence by their inactive status. The failure to make an active use of a domain name is evidence that a domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. 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). Therefore, the Panel finds that the Group C domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Finally, Complainant also contends that in light of the international fame of Complainant’s XEROX mark, Respondent had to have actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the 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 and finds that actual knowledge is adequate 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 Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <xerox510.com>,<xerox6030.com>,<xerox6050.com>,<xerox6204.com>,<xerox6279.com>,<xerox721.com>,<xerox8254e.com>,<xerox8825.com>,<xerox8830.com>,<xerox8850.com>,<xeroxdc240.com>,<xeroxdc242.com>,<xeroxdc250.com>,<xeroxdc252.com>,<xeroxdc260.com>,<xeroxlargeformat.com>,<copiersxerox.com>,<copiersxerox.net>,<copierxerox.com>,<copierxerox.net>,<largeformatxerox.com>,<xerox510.net>,<xerox6030.net>,<xerox6050.net>,<xerox6204.net>,<xerox6279.net>,<xerox721.net>,<xerox8254e.net>,<xerox8265.net>,<xerox8390.net>,<xerox8825.net>,<xerox8830.net>,<xerox8850.net>,<xerox8855.net>,<xeroxcopier.net>,<xeroxdc240.net>,<xeroxdc242.net>,<xeroxdc250.net>,<xeroxdc252.net>,<xeroxdc260.net>,<xeroxmax200.com>,<xeroxmax200.net>,<xeroxphotocopier.net>,<xeroxphotocopiers.net>,<xeroxplotter.com>,<zeroxprinter.com>,<zeroxprinters.com>,<xerox8265.com>,<xerox8390.com>, and <xerox8855.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Bruce E. Meyerson, Panelist
Dated: April 19, 2013
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page