Gap, Inc. v. Above.com Domain Privacy
Claim Number: FA1303001490231
Complainant is Gap, 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 <ananarepublic.com>, <aoldnavy.com>, <athletc.net>, <athletca.com>, <athleti.net>, <babbygap.com>, <babysap.com>, <banaanarepublic.com>, <banadarepublic.com>, <banamarepublic.com>, <bananaerepublic.com>, <bananarapublic.com>, <bananarepoublic.com>, <bananarepubilic.com>, <bananarepublicc.com>, <bananarepublich.com>, <bananarepublilc.com>, <bananarepubliuc.com>, <bananarepubplic.com>, <bananarepubulic.com>, <bananarepucblic.com>, <bananarepuclic.com>, <bananarepunlic.com>, <bananarepupblic.com>, <bananarepuublic.com>, <bananarupublic.com>, <bananerepublic.com>, <banararepublic.com>, <banbanarepublic.com>, <baygap.com>, <gapkds.com>, <goldnavy.com>, <kapkids.com>, <oldanavy.com>, <oldnamy.com>, <oldnavuy.com>, <oldnavyh.com>, <oldnayvy.com>, <oldnayy.com>, <oldnazy.com>, <olednavy.com>, <oodnavy.com>, <peiperlime.com>, <pierlime.com>, <piperlimer.com>, and <thleta.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 Honourable Neil Anthony Brown QC as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on March 15, 2013; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on March 15, 2013.
On March 18, 2013, Above.com Pty Ltd confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <ananarepublic.com>, <aoldnavy.com>, <athletc.net>, <athletca.com>, <athleti.net>, <babbygap.com>, <babysap.com>, <banaanarepublic.com>, <banadarepublic.com>, <banamarepublic.com>, <bananaerepublic.com>, <bananarapublic.com>, <bananarepoublic.com>, <bananarepubilic.com>, <bananarepublicc.com>, <bananarepublich.com>, <bananarepublilc.com>, <bananarepubliuc.com>, <bananarepubplic.com>, <bananarepubulic.com>, <bananarepucblic.com>, <bananarepuclic.com>, <bananarepunlic.com>, <bananarepupblic.com>, <bananarepuublic.com>, <bananarupublic.com>, <bananerepublic.com>, <banararepublic.com>, <banbanarepublic.com>, <baygap.com>, <gapkds.com>, <goldnavy.com>, <kapkids.com>, <oldanavy.com>, <oldnamy.com>, <oldnavuy.com>, <oldnavyh.com>, <oldnayvy.com>, <oldnayy.com>, <oldnazy.com>, <olednavy.com>, <oodnavy.com>, <peiperlime.com>, <pierlime.com>, <piperlimer.com>, and <thleta.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@ananarepublic.com, postmaster@aoldnavy.com, postmaster@athletc.net, postmaster@athletca.com, postmaster@athleti.net, postmaster@babbygap.com, postmaster@babysap.com, postmaster@banaanarepublic.com, postmaster@banadarepublic.com, postmaster@banamarepublic.com, postmaster@bananaerepublic.com, postmaster@bananarapublic.com, postmaster@bananarepoublic.com, postmaster@bananarepubilic.com, postmaster@bananarepublicc.com, postmaster@bananarepublich.com, postmaster@bananarepublilc.com, postmaster@bananarepubliuc.com, postmaster@bananarepubplic.com, postmaster@bananarepubulic.com, postmaster@bananarepucblic.com, postmaster@bananarepuclic.com, postmaster@bananarepunlic.com, postmaster@bananarepupblic.com, postmaster@bananarepuublic.com, postmaster@bananarupublic.com, postmaster@bananerepublic.com, postmaster@banararepublic.com, postmaster@banbanarepublic.com, postmaster@baygap.com, postmaster@gapkds.com, postmaster@goldnavy.com, postmaster@kapkids.com, postmaster@oldanavy.com, postmaster@oldnamy.com, postmaster@oldnavuy.com, postmaster@oldnavyh.com, postmaster@oldnayvy.com, postmaster@oldnayy.com, postmaster@oldnazy.com, postmaster@olednavy.com, postmaster@oodnavy.com, postmaster@peiperlime.com, postmaster@pierlime.com, postmaster@piperlimer.com, and postmaster@thleta.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 Honourable Neil Anthony Brown QC 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
Complainant made the following contentions.
1. Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)
a. Complainant has registered the following marks with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”):
i. ATHLETA (e.g., Reg. No. 2,427,769 registered February 13, 2001)
ii. BABY GAP (e.g., Reg. No. 1,675,154 registered February 11, 1992)
iii. BANANA REPUBLIC (e.g., Reg. No. 1,347,849 registered July 9, 1985)
iv. GAP KIDS (e.g., Reg. No. 1,416,059 registered November 4, 1986)
v. OLD NAVY (e.g., Reg. No. 2006872 registered October 8, 1996)
vi. PIPERLIME (e.g., Reg. No. 3,469,635 filed May 26, 2006, registered July 15, 2008)
b. Respondent’s <athletc.net>, <athletca.com>, <athleti.net>, and <thleta.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s ATHLETA mark.
c. Respondent’s <babbygap.com>, <babysap.com>, and <baygap.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s BABY GAP mark.
d. Respondent’s <ananarepublic.com>, <banaanarepublic.com>, <banadarepublic.com>, <banamarepublic.com>, <bananaerepublic.com>, <bananarapublic.com>, <bananarepoublic.com>, <bananarepubilic.com>, <bananarepublicc.com>, <bananarepublich.com>, <bananarepublilc.com>, <bananarepubliuc.com>, <bananarepubplic.com>, <bananarepubulic.com>, <bananarepucblic.com>, <bananarepuclic.com>, <bananarepunlic.com>, <bananarepupblic.com>, <bananarepuublic.com>, <bananarupublic.com>, <bananerepublic.com>, <banararepublic.com>, and <banbanarepublic.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s BANANA REPUBLIC mark.
e. Respondent’s <gapkds.com> and <kapkids.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s GAP KIDS mark.
f. Respondent’s <aoldnavy.com>, <goldnavy.com>, <oldanavy.com>, <oldnamy.com>, <oldnavuy.com>, <oldnavyh.com>, <oldnayvy.com>, <oldnayy.com>, <oldnazy.com>, <olednavy.com>, and <oodnavy.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s OLD NAVY mark.
g. Respondent’s <peiperlime.com>, <pierlime.com>, and <piperlimer.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s PIPERLIME 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, and Complainant has not given Respondent permission to use Complainant's mark in a domain name.
c. Respondent is using 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 also listed the disputed domain names for sale.
b. Respondent’s advertised pay-per-click links displayed on the resolving websites promote products that compete with Complainant. These links therefore divert potential customers away from Complainant to third-party websites, which disrupts Complainant’s business.
c. Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain names in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶4 (b)(iv) by using the disputed domain names to attract and mislead consumers for its own profit.
d. Respondent has engaged in typosquatting behavior.
4. Respondent’s domain name registrations
a. Respondent registered the <bananarepuclic.com> domain name on October 21, 2005.
b. Respondent registered the <oodnavy.com> domain name on April 27, 2007.
c. Respondent registered the <oldnayy.com> domain name on May 18, 2007.
d. Respondent registered the <piperlimer.com> domain name on August 30, 2007.
e. Respondent registered the <peiperlime.com> domain name on September 8, 2007.
f. Respondent registered the <oldnamy.com> domain name on February 7, 2008.
g. Respondent registered the <bananarepublilc.com> and <bananarepubulic.com> domain names on February 11, 2008.
h. Respondent registered the <banaanarepublic.com>, <bananarepublicc.com>, <bananarepucblic.com>, <bananarepunlic.com>, and <bananarepupblic.com> domain names on February 12, 2008.
i. Respondent registered the <bananerepublic.com> domain name on February 16, 2008.
j. Respondent registered the <baygap.com> domain name on May 19, 2008.
k. Respondent registered the <thleta.com> domain name on June 2, 2008.
l. Respondent registered the <oldnayvy.com> domain name on August 13, 2008.
m. Respondent registered the <banamarepublic.com> and <pierlime.com> domain names on August 15, 2008.
n. Respondent registered the <banararepublic.com> domain name on September 20, 2008.
o. Respondent registered the <oldnavyh.com> domain name on November 24, 2008.
p. Respondent registered the <goldnavy.com> domain name on December 15, 2008.
q. Respondent registered the <bananarupublic.com> domain name on January 27, 2009.
r. Respondent registered the <bananarepubilic.com> domain name on March 5, 2009.
s. Respondent registered the <bananaerepublic.com> domain name on March 8, 2009.
t. Respondent registered the <banbanarepublic.com> domain name on March 16, 2009.
u. Respondent registered the <bananarepoublic.com> domain name on March 21, 2009.
v. Respondent registered the <banadarepublic.com> domain name on March 25, 2009.
w. Respondent registered the <gapkds.com> domain name on March 26, 2009.
x. Respondent registered the <bananarepubplic.com> domain name on March 30, 2009.
y. Respondent registered the <bananarepubliuc.com> domain name on March 31, 2009.
z. Respondent registered the <athletca.com> domain name on September 11, 2009.
aa. Respondent registered the <babbygap.com> domain name on November 25, 2009.
bb. Respondent registered the <bananarapublic.com> domain name on February 16, 2010.
cc. Respondent registered the <oldnazy.com> domain name on February 25, 2010.
dd. Respondent registered the <olednavy.com> domain name on June 19, 2011.
ee. Respondent registered the <athletc.net> domain name on August 3, 2011.
ff. Respondent registered the <oldanavy.com> domain name on August 15, 2011.
gg. Respondent registered the <bananarepuublic.com> domain name on September 8, 2011.
hh. Respondent registered the <ananarepublic.com> domain name on November 9, 2011.
ii. Respondent registered the <babysap.com> domain name on February 20, 2012.
jj. Respondent registered the <athleti.net> domain name on May 24, 2012.
kk. Respondent registered the <kapkids.com> domain name on May 29, 2012.
ll. Respondent registered the <oldnavuy.com> domain name June 19, 2012.
mm. Respondent registered the <bananarepublich.com> domain name June 27, 2012.
nn. Respondent registered the <aoldnavy.com> domain name on August 20, 2012.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
1. Complainant is a well-known United States company and a leader in the retail, clothing, clothing accessories and related industries operating under the brands Athleta, Baby Gap, Banana Republic, Gap Kids, Old Navy, and Piperlime.
2. Complainant has registered the following marks with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”):
i. ATHLETA (e.g., Reg. No. 2,427,769 registered February 13, 2001)
ii. BABY GAP (e.g., Reg. No. 1,675,154 registered February 11, 1992)
iii. BANANA REPUBLIC (e.g., Reg. No. 1,347,849 registered July 9, 1985)
iv. GAP KIDS (e.g., Reg. No. 1,416,059 registered November 4, 1986)
v. OLD NAVY (e.g., Reg. No. 2006872 registered October 8, 1996)
vi. PIPERLIME (e.g., Reg. No. 3,469,635 filed May 26, 2006, registered July 15, 2008)
3. Respondent registered the <bananarepuclic.com> domain name on October 21, 2005.
4. Respondent registered the <oodnavy.com> domain name on April 27, 2007.
5. Respondent registered the <oldnayy.com> domain name on May 18, 2007.
6. Respondent registered the <piperlimer.com> domain name on August 30, 2007.
7. Respondent registered the <peiperlime.com> domain name on September 8, 2007.
8. Respondent registered the <oldnamy.com> domain name on February 7, 2008.
9. Respondent registered the <bananarepublilc.com> and <bananarepubulic.com> domain names on February 11, 2008.
10. Respondent registered the <banaanarepublic.com>, <bananarepublicc.com>, <bananarepucblic.com>, <bananarepunlic.com>, and <bananarepupblic.com> domain names on February 12, 2008.
11. Respondent registered the <bananerepublic.com> domain name on February 16, 2008.
12. Respondent registered the <baygap.com> domain name on May 19, 2008.
13. Respondent registered the <thleta.com> domain name on June 2, 2008.
14. Respondent registered the <oldnayvy.com> domain name on August 13, 2008.
15. Respondent registered the <banamarepublic.com> and <pierlime.com> domain names on August 15, 2008.
16. Respondent registered the <banararepublic.com> domain name on September 20, 2008.
17. Respondent registered the <oldnavyh.com> domain name on November 24, 2008.
18. Respondent registered the <goldnavy.com> domain name on December 15, 2008.
19. Respondent registered the <bananarupublic.com> domain name on January 27, 2009.
20. Respondent registered the <bananarepubilic.com> domain name on March 5, 2009.
21. Respondent registered the <bananaerepublic.com> domain name on March 8, 2009.
22. Respondent registered the <banbanarepublic.com> domain name on March 16, 2009.
23. Respondent registered the <bananarepoublic.com> domain name on March 21, 2009.
24. Respondent registered the <banadarepublic.com> domain name on March 25, 2009.
25. Respondent registered the <gapkds.com> domain name on March 26, 2009.
26. Respondent registered the <bananarepubplic.com> domain name on March 30, 2009.
27. Respondent registered the <bananarepubliuc.com> domain name on March 31, 2009.
28. Respondent registered the <athletca.com> domain name on September 11, 2009.
29. Respondent registered the <babbygap.com> domain name on November 25, 2009.
30. Respondent registered the <bananarapublic.com> domain name on February 16, 2010.
31. Respondent registered the <oldnazy.com> domain name on February 25, 2010.
32. Respondent registered the <olednavy.com> domain name on June 19, 2011.
33. Respondent registered the <athletc.net> domain name on August 3, 2011.
34. Respondent registered the <oldanavy.com> domain name on August 15, 2011.
35. Respondent registered the <bananarepuublic.com> domain name on September 8, 2011.
36. Respondent registered the <ananarepublic.com> domain name on November 9, 2011.
37. Respondent registered the <babysap.com> domain name on February 20, 2012.
38. Respondent registered the <athleti.net> domain name on May 24, 2012.
39. Respondent registered the <kapkids.com> domain name on May 29, 2012.
40. Respondent registered the <oldnavuy.com> domain name June 19, 2012.
41. Respondent registered the <bananarepublich.com> domain name June 27, 2012.
42. Respondent registered the <aoldnavy.com> domain name on August 20, 2012.
4. Respondent is using 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.
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.”).
The first question that arises is whether Complainant has rights in a trademark or service mark. Complainant claims ownership of several marks related to the domain names at issue in this proceeding, a result of the registration of those marks by subsidiary and associated companies of Complainant with the USPTO, including the ATHLETA mark (e.g., Reg. No. 2,427,769 registered February 13, 2001), the BABY GAP mark (e.g., Reg. No. 1,675,154 registered February 11, 1992), the BANANA REPUBLIC mark (e.g., Reg. No. 1,347,849 registered July 9, 1985), the GAP KIDS mark (e.g., Reg. No. 1,416,059 registered November 4, 1986), the OLD NAVY mark (e.g., Reg. No. 2006872 registered October 8, 1996), and the PIPERLIME mark (e.g., Reg. No. 3,469,635 filed May 26, 2006, registered July 15, 2008). The Panel finds that Complainant’s USPTO registrations confer rights in these marks for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), notwithstanding the fact that Respondent operates outside of the United States. See Reebok Int’l Ltd. v. Santos, FA 565685 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 21, 2005) (holding that a trademark registration with the USPTO was adequate to establish rights pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)); see also KCTS Television Inc. v. Get-on-the-Web Ltd., D2001-0154 (WIPO Apr. 20, 2001) (holding that it does not matter for the purpose of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) whether the complainant’s mark is registered in a country other than that of the respondent’s place of business). The Panel further finds that Complainant’s rights in a given mark date back to the date on which Complainant filed its trademark application for that mark. See 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”). Particularly, the Panel finds that Complainant’s rights in the PIPERLIME mark date back to May 26, 2006, which is a significant date with respect to the <piperlimer.com> domain name registered on August 30, 2007, the <peiperlime.com> domain name registered on September 8, 2007 and the <pierlime.com> domain name registered on August 15, 2008.
The second question that arises is whether the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to any of Complainant’s trademarks.
Complainant argues that Respondent’s <athletc.net>, <athletca.com>, <athleti.net>, and <thleta.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s ATHLETA mark. The Panel notes that the <athletc.net> and <athleti.net> domain names each replace the final “a” in Complainant’s mark with another letter. The Panel also notes that the <athletca.com> domain name adds the letter “c” to Complainant’s mark, while the <thleta.com> domain name removes the initial “a.” The Panel finds that these changes do not distinguish the domain names from Complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). 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). The Panel also finds that the affixation of a generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) to each domain is not capable of defeating confusing similarity. 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). Accordingly, the Panel concludes that Respondent’s <athletc.net>, <athletca.com>, <athleti.net>, and <thleta.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s ATHLETA mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant also argues that Respondent’s <babbygap.com>, <babysap.com>, and <baygap.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s BABY GAP mark. The Panel notes that each of these domain names differs from Complainant’s mark by a single letter, as the <babbygap.com> domain name adds an extra “b,” the <babysap.com> domain name replaces the “g” with an “s,” and the <baygap.com> domain name removes the second “b” in Complainant’s mark. The Panel also notes that each of these domain names eliminates the space between words in Complainant’s mark, while also affixing the gTLD “.com.” The Panel finds that these changes do not distinguish the domains from Complainant’s BABY GAP mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Reuters Ltd. v. Global Net 2000, Inc., D2000-0441 (WIPO July 13, 2000) (finding that a domain name which differs by only one letter from a trademark has a greater tendency to be confusingly similar to the trademark where the trademark is highly distinctive); see also Am. Int’l Group, Inc. v. Domain Admin. Ltd., FA 1106369 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 31, 2007) (finding that “spaces are impermissible and a generic top-level domain, such as ‘.com,’ ‘.net,’ ‘.biz,’ or ‘.org,’ is required in domain names. Therefore, the panel finds that the disputed domain name [<americangenerallifeinsurance.com>] is confusingly similar to the complainant’s [AMERICAN GENERAL] mark.”). Accordingly, the Panel concludes that Respondent’s <babbygap.com>, <babysap.com>, and <baygap.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s BABY GAP mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant also argues that Respondent’s <ananarepublic.com>, <banaanarepublic.com>, <banadarepublic.com>, <banamarepublic.com>, <bananaerepublic.com>, <bananarapublic.com>, <bananarepoublic.com>, <bananarepubilic.com>, <bananarepublicc.com>, <bananarepublich.com>, <bananarepublilc.com>, <bananarepubliuc.com>, <bananarepubplic.com>, <bananarepubulic.com>, <bananarepucblic.com>, <bananarepuclic.com>, <bananarepunlic.com>, <bananarepupblic.com>, <bananarepuublic.com>, <bananarupublic.com>, <bananerepublic.com>, <banararepublic.com>, and <banbanarepublic.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s BANANA REPUBLIC mark. The Panel notes that each of these domain names eliminates the space between words in Complainant’s mark, while affixing the gTLD “.com.” The Panel finds that these alterations are not relevant under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See 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)). The Panel observes that each of these domains otherwise differs from Complainant’s BANANA REPUBLIC mark by a single letter. Accordingly, the Panel holds that each of the <ananarepublic.com>, <banaanarepublic.com>, <banadarepublic.com>, <banamarepublic.com>, <bananaerepublic.com>, <bananarapublic.com>, <bananarepoublic.com>, <bananarepubilic.com>, <bananarepublicc.com>, <bananarepublich.com>, <bananarepublilc.com>, <bananarepubliuc.com>, <bananarepubplic.com>, <bananarepubulic.com>, <bananarepucblic.com>, <bananarepuclic.com>, <bananarepunlic.com>, <bananarepupblic.com>, <bananarepuublic.com>, <bananarupublic.com>, <bananerepublic.com>, <banararepublic.com>, and <banbanarepublic.com> domain names is confusingly similar to Complainant’s BANANA REPUBLIC mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). 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).
Complainant further argues that Respondent’s <gapkds.com> and <kapkids.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s GAP KIDS mark. The Panel notes that each domain name omits the space between words in Complainant’s mark and adds a gTLD. The Panel also notes that the <gapkds.com> domain name removes the letter “i” from Complainant’s mark, while the <kapkids.com> domain name replaces the “g” with a “k.” The Panel finds that these changes do not distinguish the domains from Complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Reuters Ltd. v. Global Net 2000, Inc., D2000-0441 (WIPO July 13, 2000) (finding that a domain name which differs by only one letter from a trademark has a greater tendency to be confusingly similar to the trademark where the trademark is highly distinctive); see also Am. Int’l Group, Inc. v. Domain Admin. Ltd., FA 1106369 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 31, 2007) (finding that “spaces are impermissible and a generic top-level domain, such as ‘.com,’ ‘.net,’ ‘.biz,’ or ‘.org,’ is required in domain names. Therefore, the panel finds that the disputed domain name [<americangenerallifeinsurance.com>] is confusingly similar to the complainant’s [AMERICAN GENERAL] mark.”). The Panel therefore concludes that Respondent’s <gapkds.com> and <kapkids.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s GAP KIDS mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant further argues that Respondent’s <aoldnavy.com>, <goldnavy.com>, <oldanavy.com>, <oldnamy.com>, <oldnavuy.com>, <oldnavyh.com>, <oldnayvy.com>, <oldnayy.com>, <oldnazy.com>, <olednavy.com>, and <oodnavy.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s OLD NAVY mark. The Panel notes that the <aoldnavy.com>, <goldnavy.com>, <oldanavy.com>,<oldnavuy.com>, <oldnavyh.com>, <oldnayvy.com>, and <olednavy.com> domain names add an extra letter to Complainant’s mark. The Panel also notes that the <oldnamy.com>, <oldnayy.com>, <oldnazy.com>, and <oodnavy.com> domain names replace a single letter in Complainant’s mark with a different letter. The Panel notes that Respondent has created a distinct domain name in neither instance. See 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); see also Belkin Components v. Gallant, FA 97075 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 29, 2001) (finding the <belken.com> domain name confusingly similar to the complainant's BELKIN mark because the name merely replaced the letter “i” in the complainant's mark with the letter “e”). The Panel observes that each of the domains also omits the space between words in Complainant’s mark and adds a gTLD, but the Panel finds these changes to be insignificant under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) as well. See 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)). Accordingly, the Panel concludes that Respondent’s <aoldnavy.com>, <goldnavy.com>, <oldanavy.com>, <oldnamy.com>, <oldnavuy.com>, <oldnavyh.com>, <oldnayvy.com>, <oldnayy.com>, <oldnazy.com>, <olednavy.com>, and <oodnavy.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s OLD NAVY mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Finally, Complainant argues that Respondent’s <peiperlime.com>, <pierlime.com>, and <piperlimer.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s PIPERLIME mark. The Panel notes that the <peiperlime.com> and <piperlimer.com> domain names add an extra letter to Complainant’s mark, while the <pierlime.com> domain name omits the second “p.” The Panel also notes that each domain name attaches the gTLD “.com.” Past panels have declined to view these alterations as capable of creating a distinct domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). 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 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). Accordingly, the Panel concludes that Respondent’s <peiperlime.com>, <pierlime.com>, and <piperlimer.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s PIPERLIME mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant has thus made out the first of the three elements that it must establish.
It is now well established that Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 18, 2006) (holding that the complainant must first make a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under UDRP ¶ 4(a)(ii) before the burden shifts to the respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in a domain name); see also AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 25, 2006) (“Complainant must first make a prima facie showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names, which burden is light. If Complainant satisfies its burden, then the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain names.”).
The Panel finds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case that arises from the following considerations:
(a) Respondent has chosen in the case of each of the disputed domain names to take one of Complainant’s trademarks referred to above and to use it in its domain name, making only minor spelling alterations, thus implying that the domain name in each case is an official domain name of Complainant and that it will lead to an official website of Complainant dealing with the particular brand in question, neither of which is true;
(b) Respondent has then caused the respective domain names to redirect unsuspecting Internet users to websites featuring generic links to third-party websites, some of which directly compete with Complainant's business;
(c) Respondent has engaged in these activities without the consent or approval of Complainant;
(d) Complainant alleges that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). Complainant makes reference to the WHOIS information, which identifies the domain name registrant as “Above.com Domain Privacy,” arguing that this provides no evidence to suggest that Respondent is commonly known by either disputed domain name. Complainant asserts that Respondent is not sponsored by or legitimately affiliated with Complainant in any way, and that Complainant has not given Respondent permission to use Complainant's mark in a domain name. The Panel finds no evidence in the record to suggest that Respondent is in fact commonly known by any of the disputed domain names. As a result, the Panel concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by the domain names pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See IndyMac Bank F.S.B. v. Eshback, FA 830934 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 7, 2006) (finding that the respondent failed to establish rights and legitimate interests in the <emitmortgage.com> domain name as the respondent was not authorized to register domain names featuring the complainant’s mark and failed to submit evidence that it is commonly known by the domain name);
(e) Complainant also alleges that Respondent is using 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, and that Respondent presumably receives pay-per-click fees from these linked websites. The Panel determines that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain names for this purpose constitutes neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See ALPITOUR S.p.A. v. Albloushi, FA 888651 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 26, 2007) (rejecting the respondent’s contention of rights and legitimate interests in the <bravoclub.com> domain name because the respondent was merely using the domain name to operate a website containing links to various competing commercial websites, which the panel did not find to be a use in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)).
All of these matters go to make out the prima facie case against Respondent. As Respondent has not filed a Response or attempted by any other means to rebut the prima facie case against it, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.
Complainant has thus made out the second of the three elements that it must establish.
It is clear that to establish bad faith for the purposes of the Policy, Complainant must show that the disputed domain names were registered in bad faith and have been used in bad faith. It is also clear that the criteria set out in Policy ¶ 4(b) for establishing bad faith are not exclusive, but that Complainants in UDRP proceedings may also rely on conduct that is bad faith within the generally accepted meaning of that expression.
Having regard to those principles, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names were registered and used in bad faith. That is so for the following reasons.
Secondly, Complainant claims that Respondent has advertised pay-per-click links displayed on the resolving websites that promote products that compete with Complainant, and that these links divert potential customers away from Complainant to third-party websites, thereby disrupting Complainant’s business. Complainant urges that Respondent’s efforts to divert consumers and disrupt Complainant’s business is evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). The Panel agrees, concluding that Respondent’s registration of confusingly similar domain names in order to host websites featuring competing pay-per-clicks improperly disrupts Complainant’s business. See Tesco Pers. Fin. Ltd. v. Domain Mgmt. Servs., FA 877982 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 13, 2007) (concluding that the use of a confusingly similar domain name to attract Internet users to a directory website containing commercial links to the websites of a complainant’s competitors represents bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)). The Panel holds that Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain names in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).
Thirdly, Complainant also argues that Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain names in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶4 (b)(iv) by using the domains to attract and mislead consumers for Respondent’s own profit. The Panel reasons that Respondent’s selection of domain names that are confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark increases the likelihood that consumers will unwittingly associate Respondent’s sites with Complainant, thereby increasing Internet traffic to Respondent’s sites and allowing Respondent to generate greater click-through revenues. The Panel holds that this business model does not comport with a good faith use of the domains. See Associated Newspapers Ltd. v. Domain Manager, FA 201976 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 19, 2003) (“Respondent's prior use of the <mailonsunday.com> domain name is evidence of bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) because the domain name provided links to Complainant's competitors and Respondent presumably commercially benefited from the misleading domain name by receiving ‘click-through-fees.’”). Consequently, the Panel determines that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain names in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
Fourthly, Complainant contends that Respondent has engaged in typosquatting behavior through its registration of the disputed domain names, which demonstrates bad faith in and of itself. Complainant argues that Respondent’s selection of these particular domains was designed to take advantage of Internet users’ typographical errors. The Panel agrees, finding both that Respondent has in fact engaged in typosquatting behavior and that such behavior constitutes bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Zone Labs, Inc. v. Zuccarini, FA 190613 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 15, 2003) (“Respondent’s registration and use of [the <zonelarm.com> domain name] that capitalizes on the typographical error of an Internet user is considered typosquatting. Typosquatting, itself is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”).
Fifthly, in addition and having regard to the totality of the evidence, the Panel finds that, in view of Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain names using the Complainant’s trademarks in the manner described above and its subsequent use of the disputed domain names, Respondent registered and used them in bad faith within the generally accepted meaning of that expression.
Complainant has thus made out the third of the three elements that it must establish.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <ananarepublic.com>, <aoldnavy.com>, <athletc.net>, <athletca.com>, <athleti.net>, <babbygap.com>, <babysap.com>, <banaanarepublic.com>, <banadarepublic.com>, <banamarepublic.com>, <bananaerepublic.com>, <bananarapublic.com>, <bananarepoublic.com>, <bananarepubilic.com>, <bananarepublicc.com>, <bananarepublich.com>, <bananarepublilc.com>, <bananarepubliuc.com>, <bananarepubplic.com>, <bananarepubulic.com>, <bananarepucblic.com>, <bananarepuclic.com>, <bananarepunlic.com>, <bananarepupblic.com>, <bananarepuublic.com>, <bananarupublic.com>, <bananerepublic.com>, <banararepublic.com>, <banbanarepublic.com>, <baygap.com>, <gapkds.com>, <goldnavy.com>, <kapkids.com>, <oldanavy.com>, <oldnamy.com>, <oldnavuy.com>, <oldnavyh.com>, <oldnayvy.com>, <oldnayy.com>, <oldnazy.com>, <olednavy.com>, <oodnavy.com>, <peiperlime.com>, <pierlime.com>, <piperlimer.com>, and <thleta.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
The Honourable Neil Anthony Brown QC
Panelist
Dated: May 11, 2013
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page