Watts Water Technologies Inc. v. Shanghai Jiang Sen Valve Manufacturing Co., Ltd. / mingxing ye
Claim Number: FA1312001534282
Complainant is Watts Water Technologies Inc. (“Complainant”), Massachusetts, USA. Respondent is Shanghai Jiang Sen Valve Manufacturing Co., Ltd. / mingxing ye (“Respondent”), China.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <wattsv.com>, registered with Shanghai Meicheng Technology Information Development Co., 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.
Darryl C. Wilson, as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on December 12, 2013; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on December 23, 2013. The Complaint was submitted in both Chinese and English.
On December 13, 2013, Shanghai Meicheng Technology Information Development Co., Ltd. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <wattsv.com> domain name is registered with Shanghai Meicheng Technology Information Development Co., Ltd. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Shanghai Meicheng Technology Information Development Co., Ltd. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Shanghai Meicheng Technology Information Development Co., 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 December 27, 2013, the Forum served the Chinese language Complaint and all Annexes, including a Chinese language Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of January 16, 2014 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@wattsv.com. Also on December 27, 2013, the Chinese language 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 January 17, 2014 pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Darryl C. Wilson, 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.
Panel Note: Language of the Proceedings
The Panel notes that the Registration Agreement is written in Chinese, thereby making the language of the proceedings in Chinese. Pursuant to Rule 11(a), the Panel determines that the language requirement has been satisfied through the Chinese language Complaint and Commencement Notification, and, absent a Response, determines that the remainder of the proceedings may be conducted in English.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
a. Complainant, Watts Water Technologies Inc., manufactures pressure reducing valves to regulate steam and relief values to ensure safe operation of water heaters and boilers.
b. Complainant is the owner of trademark registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) for the WATTS mark (e.g., Reg. No. 563,758, registered September 9, 1959). Complainant is also the owner of a trademark registrations with China’s State Administration for Industry and Commerce (“SAIC”) for the WATTS mark (Reg. No. 856,788, registered July 21, 1996).
c. The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights. The generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com” is not relevant. The addition of the single letter “v” to Complainant’s famous WATTS trademark does not negate the confusing similarity between <wattsv.com> and Complainant’s mark.
d. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
i. Respondent has not been commonly known by the disputed domain name. Respondent is not an affiliate of Complainant, nor does Complainant in any way sponsor Respondent’s actions.
ii. Respondent is using the disputed domain name to imitate WATTS by displaying a blue “W” logo and offering the same goods that Complainant provides.
e. The domain name should be considered as having been registered and being used in bad faith.
i. Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name constitutes a disruption of Complainant’s business.
ii. Respondent is diverting Complainant’s customers or potential customers seeking information about Complainant to the website which Respondent’s domain name resolves, where Respondent presumably obtains commercial benefits.
iii. Respondent has demonstrated a thorough knowledge of Complainant’s brands and business. This is evident through the incorporation of Complainant’s brand names and business names into the disputed domain name’s website’s coding.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant is Watts Water Technologies, Inc. of North Andover, MA, USA. Complainant is the owner of domestic and international registrations for the mark WATTS, and related marks, which it uses in connection with goods and services associated with the plumbing, heating and water quality markets. Complainant has used the WATTS mark continuously since at least as early as 1959, has been in the international market since the 1960’s and expanded into China in the 1990’s. Complainant also owns registrations for numerous websites including <watts.com>.
Respondent is Shanghai Jiang Sen Valve Manufacturing Co., Ltd./Mingxing Ye of Shanghai, China. Respondent’s registrar’s address is also listed as Shanghai, China. Respondent registered the <wattsv.com> domain name on or about July 14, 2013.
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 contends that it manufactures pressure reducing valves to regulate steam and relief values to ensure safe operation of water heaters and boilers. Complainant argues that it is the owner of trademark registrations with the USPTO for the WATTS mark (e.g., Reg. No. 563,758, registered September 9, 1959). See Complainant’s Exhibit A. Complainant alleges that it is also the owner of trademark registrations with China’s SAIC for the WATTS mark (Reg. No. 856,788, registered July 21, 1996). Id. The Panel notes that Respondent appears to reside and operate in China. The Panel finds that Complainant has sufficiently proven its rights in the WATTS mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through its registrations with the USPTO and SAIC. See Digi-Key Corp. v. Bei jing ju zhong cheng dian zi ji shu you xian gong si, FA 1213758 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 1, 2008) (“The Panel finds these registrations [with the USPTO and SAIC] sufficiently establish Complainant’s rights in its DIGI-KEY mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”).
Complainant alleges that Respondent’s <wattsv.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s WATTS mark. Complainant argues that Respondent’s addition of the single letter “v” to its WATTS trademark does not negate the confusing similarity between <wattsv.com> and the Complainant’s mark. The Panel finds that Respondent’s addition of a letter to Complainant’s mark does not distinguish the disputed domain name from Complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Valpak Direct Mktg. Sys., Inc. v. Manila Indus., Inc., D2006-0714 (WIPO Aug. 17, 2006) (finding the <vallpak.com> domain name to be confusingly similar to the VALPAK mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)).
The Panel further notes that Respondent adds the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com” to Complainant’s mark in the disputed domain name. In Reese v. Morgan, FA 917029 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 5, 2007), the panel found that the mere addition of the generic top-level domain “.com” is insufficient to differentiate a disputed domain name from a mark. The Panel here holds that Respondent’s inclusion of a gTLD is inconsequential to a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) determination.
The Panel finds that Respondent’s <wattsv.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s WATTS mark according to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
The Complainant has proven this element.
The Panel recognizes that 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). The Complainant has met this burden.
Complainant claims that Respondent has not been commonly known by the <wattsv.com> domain name. The Panel notes that the WHOIS information identifies “Shanghai Jiang Sen Valve Manufacturing Co., Ltd. / mingxing ye” as the registrant of the disputed domain name. See Complainant’s Exhibit B. Complainant asserts that Respondent is not sponsored by or affiliated with Complainant in any way. Complainant contends that it has not given Respondent permission to use Complainant’s marks in a domain name. In M. Shanken Commc’ns v. WORLDTRAVELERSONLINE.COM, FA 740335 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 3, 2006), the panel concluded that respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain names where the information in the record gave no indication that respondent was commonly known by the domain names, and complainant had not authorized respondent to register a domain name containing its registered mark. The Panel here finds that Respondent’s is not commonly known by the <wattsv.com> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
Complainant argues that Respondent is using the <wattsv.com> domain name to imitate WATTS by displaying a blue “W” logo and offering the same goods that Complainant provides. The Panel notes that Respondent’s disputed domain name resolves to a website displaying Complainant’s logo and purporting to offer the same services as Complainant. See Complainant’s Exhibit C. Prior panels have concluded that a respondent’s use of a website to pass itself off as a complainant is not a Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) bona fide offering of goods or services, or a Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See Nokia Corp. v. Eagle, FA 1125685 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 7, 2008) (finding the respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to pass itself off as the complainant in order to advertise and sell unauthorized products of the complainant was not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)). The Panel here finds that Respondent is not using the <wattsv.com> domain name in connection with a Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) bona fide offering of goods or services or a Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) legitimate noncommercial or fair use.
Respondent makes no contentions with regards to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Because the Respondent has not provided a response to this action the Respondent has failed to meet its burden regarding proof of any rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain.
The Complainant has proven this element.
Complainant asserts that Respondent’s use of the <wattsv.com> domain name constitutes a disruption of Complainant’s business. The Panel notes that Respondent’s disputed domain name resolves to a website that appears to offer services similar to those of Complainant. See Complainant’s Exhibit C. Previous panels have determined that a respondent’s use of a disputed domain name to offer competing services shows bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See DatingDirect.com Ltd. v. Aston, FA 593977 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 28, 2005) (“Respondent is appropriating Complainant’s mark to divert Complainant’s customers to Respondent’s competing business. The Panel finds this diversion is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).”). The Panel here finds that Respondent’s use of the <wattsv.com> domain name disrupts Complainant’s legitimate business, showing bad faith use and registration pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).
Complainant contends that Respondent is diverting Complainant’s customers or potential customers seeking information about Complainant to the website which Respondent’s <wattsv.com> domain name resolves, where Respondent presumably obtains commercial benefits. The Panel again notes that Respondent’s disputed domain name links to a webpage that displays Complainant’s logo and purports to offer similar services to Complainant’s services. See Complainant’s Exhibit C. In Am. Online, Inc. v. Miles, FA 105890 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 31, 2002), the panel found that “Respondent is using the domain name at issue to resolve to a website at which Complainant’s trademarks and logos are prominently displayed. Respondent has done this with full knowledge of Complainant’s business and trademarks. The Panel finds that this conduct is prohibited by Paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.” The Panel here finds that Respondent’s use of the <wattsv.com> domain name to attract consumers to its site for commercial gain shows bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) as there is a likelihood that Internet users will confuse Complainant as a source or originator of the content viewable through the disputed domain name’s website.
The Complainant has proven this element.
Because the Complainant has established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that Complainant’s requested relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <wattsv.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Darryl C. Wilson, Panelist
Dated: January 31, 2014
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page