3M Company v. Linh Vu
Claim Number: FA1407001572521
Complainant is 3M Company (“Complainant”), which is represented by William Schultz of Merchant & Gould, P.C., Minnesota, USA. Respondent is Linh Vu (“Respondent”), Vietnam.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <littmannmastercardiologyreview.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 conflict of interests in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Terry F. Peppard as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electron-ically on July 30, 2014; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on July 30, 2014.
On July 30, 2014, GODADDY.COM, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <littmannmastercardiologyreview.com> domain name is registered with GODADDY.COM, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. 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 July 31, 2014, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 20, 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@littmannmastercardiologyreview.com. Also on July 31, 2014, 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 which was compliant with the requirements of the Policy and its accompanying Rules, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On August 26, 2014, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Terry F. Peppard as sole Panelist in this proceeding.
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 name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant has been using the LITTMANN mark in commerce since 1942 in connection with the sale of medical equipment.
Complainant holds a registration, which is on file with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”), for the LITTMANN trademark (Registry No. 751,809, registered June 25, 1963).
Complainant also holds a registration, on file with the USPTO for the MASTER CARDIOLOGY trademark (Registry No. 3,253,234, registered June 19, 2007), which it employs in the sale of stethoscopes.
Respondent registered the domain name littmannmastercardiologyreview.com> on July 1, 2014.
The disputed domain name combines and is confusingly similar to both the LITTMANN and MASTER CARDIOLOGY marks.
Respondent has not been commonly known by the disputed domain name.
Respondent uses the disputed domain name to link potential customers of Complainant to on-line advertisements for unrelated companies.
Complainant has not given Respondent permission to use either its LITTMANN or its MASTER CARDIOLOGY marks.
Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name.
Respondent knew of Complainant and its rights in its LITTMANN and MASTER CARDIOLOGY marks when it registered the contested domain name.
Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name disrupts Complainant’s business.
Respondent uses the disputed domain name for commercial gain in the form of advertising revenue through reliance on confusion among Internet users as to the possibility of Complainant’s affiliation with the domain name.
Respondent has registered and uses the contested domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent has failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. However, in e-mail messages addressed to the National Arbitration Forum, Respondent has declared as follows: “I made a mistake in choosing this domain name and I deleted this domain,” and “I have already deleted the website….”
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that, in the ordinary course, Complainant must prove each of the following in order to obtain from a Panel an order that a domain name be transferred:
i. the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights;
ii. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
iii. the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”) instructs this Panel to “decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accord-ance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.”
Further, Paragraph 14(b) of the Rules provides that, where a party fails to comply with requirements laid on by the Rules, the Panel may draw such inferences from that failure as it considers appropriate.
DECISION
It appears from the record that Respondent does not contest the material alle-gations of the Complaint. It further appears that Respondent does not object to Complainant’s request for the transfer to it of the subject domain name as prayed for in the Complaint, so that the parties have tacitly agreed to the transfer of the subject domain name from Respondent to Complainant without the need for further proceedings. In the exceptional circumstances here presented, we conclude that no worthwhile purpose would be served by a rendition of findings otherwise customary in proceedings of this sort.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <littmannmastercardiologyreview.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED forthwith from Respondent to Complainant.
Terry F. Peppard, Panelist
Dated: September 1, 2014
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page