Homer TLC, Inc. v. Mucahid SAKI
Claim Number: FA1502001605798
Complainant is Homer TLC, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Justin S. Haddock of Fulbright & Jaworski LLP, Texas, USA. Respondent is Mucahid SAKI (“Respondent”), Florida, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <homedepothours.net>, registered with GODADDY.COM, LLC.
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 Forum electronically on February 19, 2015; the Forum received payment on February 19, 2015.
On February 20, 2015, GODADDY.COM, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <homedepothours.net> 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 February 23, 2015, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 16, 2015 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@homedepothours.net. Also on February 23, 2015, 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 Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On March 18, 2015, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the 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 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 <homedepothours.net> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s HOME DEPOT mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <homedepothours.net> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and uses the <homedepothours.net> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant owns numerous registrations for its well-known HOME DEPOT mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g. Registration No. 2,314,081).
Respondent registered the <homedepothours.net> domain name on January 24, 2014, and uses it to resolve to a website featuring links to Complainant’s competitors.
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 Complainant has established rights in the HOME DEPOT mark through registration with the USPTO. 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)).
Respondent’s <homedepothours.net> domain name incorporates Complainant’s HOME DEPOT mark in full and merely adds the generic word “hours,” and the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.net.” These changes do not distinguish the disputed domain name from Complainant’s mark. See Arthur Guinness Son & Co. (Dublin) Ltd. v. Healy/BOSTH, D2001-0026 (WIPO Mar. 23, 2001) (finding confusing similarity where the domain name in dispute contains the identical mark of the complainant combined with a generic word or term); see also Bank of Am. Corp. v. McCall, FA 135012 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 31, 2002) (holding that attaching a gTLD is “unable to create a distinction capable of overcoming a finding of confusing similarity”). Therefore, the Panel finds that the <homedepothours.net> domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s HOME DEPOT 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 asserts Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, arguing that Respondent is not commonly known by the <homedepothours.net> domain name. The WHOIS information lists “Mucahid SAKI” as the registrant of record. Complainant states that Respondent is not licensed or authorized by Complainant to use the HOME DEPOT mark. Given the lack of evidence to infer otherwise, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Braun Corp. v. Loney, FA 699652 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 7, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain names where the WHOIS information, as well as all other information in the record, gave no indication that the respondent was commonly known by the domain names, and the complainant had not authorized the respondent to register a domain name containing its registered mark).
Complainant also argues that Respondent is not using the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services, or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Complainant provides evidence that Respondent’s disputed domain name resolves to a website that offers competing services. Prior panels have agreed that this type of competitive use is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a 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).”). Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the <homedepothours.net> domain name is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Complainant argues that Respondent registered the <homedepothours.net> domain name with knowledge of Complainant and its rights in the HOME DEPOT mark. The Panel notes that the disputed domain name diverts Internet users to a website that mimics Complainant’s logo, mentions Complainant’s hours, and copies images from Complainant’s website. Due to the use of the disputed domain name and the fame of Complainant’s HOME DEPOT mark, the Panel finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the mark prior to registering the disputed domain name, which constitutes bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Victoria’s Secret Stores Brand Mgmt., Inc. v. Michael Bach, FA 1426668 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 2, 2012) (“Although Complainant has not submitted evidence indicating actual knowledge by Respondent of its rights in the trademark, the Panel finds that, due to the fame of Complainant’s [VICTORIA’S SECRET] mark, Respondent had actual notice at the time of the domain name registration and therefore registered the domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”); see also Deep Foods, Inc. v. Jamruke, LLC, FA 648190 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 10, 2006) (stating that while mere constructive knowledge is insufficient to support a finding of bad faith, where the circumstances indicate that the respondent had actual knowledge of the complainant’s mark when it registered the domain name, panels can find bad faith).
Respondent is disrupting Complainant’s business by diverting Internet users seeking Complainant to Respondent’s website featuring competing links. The Panel thus finds a Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) bad faith commercial disruption. See Univ. of Texas Sys. v. Smith, FA 1195696 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 7, 2008) (finding that using the resolving website to divert Internet users to the complainant’s competitors constituted bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)).
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 <homedepothours.net> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist
Dated: March 24, 2015
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page