Armored Solutions, Inc. v. Alan Smith
Claim Number: FA0812001239227
Complainant is Armored
Solutions, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Donald S. Holland, of Holland & Bonzagni, P.C.,
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN
NAME
The domain name at issue is <armor-solutions.com>, registered with Register.com, Inc.
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.
Louis E. Condon as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to
the National Arbitration Forum electronically on
On
On
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On January 28, 2009, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Louis E. Condon 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." Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the National Arbitration Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant makes the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s <armor-solutions.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ARMORED SOLUTIONS mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <armor-solutions.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <armor-solutions.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Armored Solutions, Inc., registered the ARMORED SOLUTIONS mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) in connection with its civilian armored vehicle business (Reg. No. 2,360,339 issued June 20, 2000).
Respondent registered the <armor-solutions.com>
domain name on
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."
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
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.
Pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i),
Complainant must first establish rights in the ARMORED SOLUTIONS mark. The Panel finds that Complainant’s registration
of the ARMORED SOLUTIONS mark with the USPTO is sufficient to establish
Complainant’s rights in the mark. See Enter. Rent-A-Car Co. v. Language Direct,
FA 306586 (Nat. Arb. Forum
The <armor-solutions.com> domain name differs
from Complainant’s ARMORED SOLUTIONS mark only by omitting the suffix “ed” from
the first word of the mark and adding a hyphen and the generic top-level domain
(gTLD) “.com.” The addition of a gTLD
and a hyphen are irrelevant when conducting an analysis under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Health Devices Corp. v.
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Pursuant to Policy
¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first establish a prima
facie case that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the
disputed domain name. If the Panel finds
that Complainant’s allegations establish such a prima facie case, the
burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does indeed have rights or
legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to the guidelines in
Policy ¶ 4(c). Since no response was
submitted in this case, the Panel may presume that Respondent has no rights or
legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. See Compagnie Generale des Matieres
Nucleaires v. Greenpeace Int’l, D2001-0376 (WIPO
Under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), if
Respondent demonstrates it is commonly known by the disputed domain name, then
it will have demonstrated rights or legitimate interests in said name. The Panel finds no evidence in the record
suggesting that Respondent is commonly known by the <armor-solutions.com>
domain name. Complainant asserts that
Respondent has no license or agreement with Complainant authorizing Respondent
to use the ARMORED SOLUTIONS mark, and the WHOIS information identifies
Respondent as “Alan Smith.” Thus,
Respondent has not established rights or legitimate interests in the disputed
domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Tercent Inc. v. Lee Yi,
FA 139720 (Nat. Arb. Forum
Respondent may also prove it has rights or legitimate
interests in the disputed domain name by showing it is being used in connection
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). The disputed domain name is being used to
direct Internet users to a commercial website offering civilian and military
armored vehicles in competition with Complainant. Using a domain name that is confusingly
similar to Complainant’s mark to direct Internet users to a competing business
is neither a bona fide offering of
goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Therefore, the Panel finds Respondent does
not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name
pursuant to Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Computerized Sec. Sys., Inc. v. Hu,
FA 157321 (Nat. Arb. Forum
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Respondent
is using the disputed domain name to resolve to a commercial website that
offers armored vehicles in competition with Complainant. Respondent may thereby gain customers who are
looking for Complainant’s business. The
Panel infers that Respondent registered the disputed domain to disrupt
Complainant’s competing business. This
constitutes bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See Disney
Enters., Inc. v. Noel, FA 198805 (Nat. Arb.
Forum
Internet users who view the website resolving from the
disputed domain name may assume Complainant endorses or is otherwise affiliated
with the site since Respondent is offering similar goods. Respondent is seeking to profit from this
confusion, which the Panel finds constitutes bad faith registration and use
pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Nokia Corp. v. Private, D2000-1271 (WIPO
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Complainant having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief should be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <armor-solutions.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Louis E. Condon, Panelist
Dated: February 11, 2009
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum