Solazyme, Inc. v. VistaPrint Technologies Ltd
Claim Number: FA1408001574178
Complainant is Solazyme, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Lindsey B. Furtado of Owen, Wickersham & Erickson, P.C., California, USA. Respondent is VistaPrint Technologies Ltd (“Respondent”), Bermuda.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <sollazyme.com>, registered with Tucows Domains Inc.
The undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his or her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on August 8, 2014; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on August 8, 2014.
On August 12, 2014, Tucows Domains Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <sollazyme.com> domain name is registered with Tucows Domains Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Tucows Domains Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Tucows Domains Inc. 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 August 13, 2014, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 2, 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@sollazyme.com. Also on August 13, 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, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On September 4, 2014, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Sandra J. Franklin 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 name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
1. Respondent’s <sollazyme.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s SOLAZYME mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <sollazyme.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and uses the <sollazyme.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant uses the SOLAZYME mark in connection with research, development, and production in the renewable oil and bioproducts fields. The mark has been registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") (e.g., Reg. No. 3,173,817 registered Nov. 21, 2006).
Respondent registered the <sollazyme.com> domain name on July 18, 2014, and uses it to redirect Internet traffic to its own website.
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 Panel finds that USPTO registration is sufficient to establish Complainant’s rights in the SOLAZYME mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) regardless of where Respondent resides. See W.W. Grainger, Inc. v. Above.com Domain Privacy, FA 1334458 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 24, 2010) (stating that “the Panel finds that USPTO registration is sufficient to establish these [Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)] rights even when Respondent lives or operates in a different country.”).
Respondent’s <sollazyme.com> domain name merely adds an extra letter “l” and the generic top-level domain ("gTLD") “.com” to Complainant’s mark. These alterations are insufficient to distinguish the domain name from the mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Google, Inc. v. DktBot.org, FA 286993 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 4, 2004) (“The mere addition of a single letter to the complainant’s mark does not remove the respondent’s domain names from the realm of confusing similarity in relation to the complainant’s mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”); 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). Thus, the Panel finds that the <sollazyme.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark.
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Once Complainant makes a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), 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.”).
Complainant argues that the WHOIS information states that the registrant of the <sollazyme.com> domain name is “VistaPrint Technologies Ltd.” and there is no other evidence suggesting Respondent is commonly known by the <sollazyme.com> domain name. The Panel agrees and finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. See Instron Corp. v. Kaner, FA 768859 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 21, 2006) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain names because the WHOIS information listed “Andrew Kaner c/o Electromatic a/k/a Electromatic Equip't” as the registrant and there was no other evidence in the record to suggest that the respondent was commonly known by the domain names in dispute).
Complainant claims that Respondent uses the domain name to promote its own website business. The Panel notes that the disputed domain name contains an advertisement promoting Respondent’s business. The Panel finds that this does not constitute a Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) bona fide offering, or a Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See Alcon, Inc. v. ARanked, FA 1306493 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 18, 2010) (“The Panel finds that capitalizing on the well-known marks of Complainant by attracting internet users to its disputed domain names where Respondent sells competing products of Complainant is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”).
Complainant also argues that Respondent uses a common spelling error in the disputed domain name, which is further evidence of the lack of rights and legitimate interests. The Panel finds that Respondent is typosquatting, which is does not indicate Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) rights or legitimate interests. See Microsoft Corp. v. Domain Registration Philippines, FA 877979 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 20, 2007) (concluding that by registering the <microssoft.com> domain name, the respondent had “engaged in typosquatting, which provides additional evidence that [the] respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).”).
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Complainant claims Respondent has a history of registering infringing Internet domain names. See, e.g., AB SCIEX LLC v. VistaPrint Technologies Ltd., FA 1559200 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 20, 2014); Zoetis Inc. v. VistaPrint Technologies Ltd., FA 1550102 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 5, 2014). The Panel finds that these prior decisions against Respondent constitute evidence of Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii) bad faith. See TRAVELOCITY.COM LP v. Aziz, FA 1260783 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 16, 2009) (“These previous [UDRP] decisions demonstrate a pattern of bad faith registration and use of domain names under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii).”).
Complainant suggests Respondent is profiting on the likelihood Internet users may associate the disputed domain name with Complainant’s business. The Panel agrees that Respondent seeks to profit from a likelihood of confusion, bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Velv, LLC v. AAE, FA 677922 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 25, 2006) (finding that the respondent’s use of the <arizonashuttle.net> domain name, which contained the complainant’s ARIZONA SHUTTLE mark, to attract Internet traffic to the respondent’s website offering competing travel services violated Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)).
Finally, Complainant claims Respondent’s typosquatting behavior is in itself evidence suggesting bad faith is at play. The Panel believes the additional “l” is a minor enough variation to create a suspicion of typosquatting and finds Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) bad faith here. See Nextel Commc’ns Inc. v. Geer, FA 477183 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 15, 2005) (finding that the respondent’s registration and use of the <nextell.com> domain name was in bad faith because the domain name epitomized typosquatting in its purest form).
The Panel finds that 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 <sollazyme.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist
Dated: September 11, 2014
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page