Lean In Foundation d/b/a LeanIn.Org v. John Brown
Claim Number: FA1506001626633
Complainant is Lean In Foundation d/b/a LeanIn.Org (“Complainant”), represented by Roberta L. Horton of Arnold & Porter LLP, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is John Brown (“Respondent”), Florida, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <leanintogether.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 known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.) as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on June 29, 2015; the Forum received payment on June 30, 2015.
On July 1, 2015, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <leanintogether.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 6, 2015, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 27, 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@leanintogether.com. Also on July 6, 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 July 31, 2015, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed the Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.) 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
Complainant owns the LEAN IN mark through its trademark registration with the European Union’s Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (“OHIM”) (Reg. No. 011677424, filed March 21, 2013, registered November 22, 2013). The <leanintogether.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the LEAN IN mark, because Respondent has simply removed the spaces between the words of the mark, attached the generic term “together,” and the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.”
Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and Respondent has never been licensed or authorized to use the LEAN IN mark. Respondent has not provided a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. Rather, Respondent uses the disputed domain name as a parked web page to host various links to third-party businesses. Further, Respondent has placed an offer to sell the disputed domain name at the top of the website.
Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. First, Respondent has offered the disputed domain name for sale, which demonstrates bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(i). Additionally, Respondent uses the disputed domain name to intentionally attract Internet users to its own website, in which it has placed numerous hyperlinks to third-party businesses. Respondent presumably profits when Internet users click on one of these links. Finally, due to the fame of Complainant and the LEAN IN mark, Respondent must have had actual and/or constructive knowledge of Complainant and the LEAN IN mark.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Lean In Foundation d/b/a LeanIn.Org, is a California nonprofit public benefit corporation. LeanIn.Org is a global organization that empowers people and helps them to achieve their goals. Complainant has rights in the LEAN IN mark through its trademark registration with the European Union’s Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (“OHIM”) (Reg. No. 011677424, filed March 21, 2013, registered November 22, 2013).
Respondent, John Brown, registered the <leanintogether.com> domain name on May 25, 2013. The domain name points to a directory website on GoDaddy.com that has sponsored links to other websites. The website also offers the domain name for sale for $69.9 and includes an advertisement for visitors to become famous writers.
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 has rights in the LEAN IN mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through its trademark registration with the OHIM. See Direct Mktg. Co. S.p.A. v. Morelli, D2010-1335 (WIPO Sept. 6, 2010) (finding Complainant’s European Union Office for the Harmonization of the Internal Market (“OHIM”) trademark registration sufficient to establish complainant’s rights in its GIORNO NOTTE mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)). Complainant’s rights in the LEAN IN mark date back to March 21, 2013, the filing date for the mark. See Hershey Co. v. Reaves, FA 967818 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 8, 2007) (finding that the complainant’s rights in the KISSES trademark through registration of the mark with the USPTO “date back to the filing date of the trademark application and predate [the] respondent’s registration”).
Respondent’s <leanintogether.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the LEAN IN mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), because Respondent has simply removed the spaces between the words of the mark, attached the generic term “together,” and the gTLD “.com.”
Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Complainant has not licensed or authorized Respondent to use the LEAN IN mark. The WHOIS information for the <leanintogether.com> domain name lists “John Brown” as registrant. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See IndyMac Bank F.S.B. v. Eshback, FA 830934 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 7, 2006) (finding that the respondent failed to establish rights and legitimate interests in the <emitmortgage.com> domain name as the respondent was not authorized to register domain names featuring the complainant’s mark and failed to submit evidence that it is commonly known by the domain name).
Respondent has failed to make a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the<leanintogether.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii), respectively. Rather, Respondent uses the disputed domain name as a parked webpage that features a variety of different hyperlinks to third-party businesses, through which Respondent presumably profits. See Disney Enters., Inc. v. Dot Stop, FA 145227 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 17, 2003) (finding that the respondent’s diversionary use of the complainant’s mark to attract Internet users to its own website, which contained a series of hyperlinks to unrelated websites, was neither a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain names).
Further, Respondent has placed a general offer to sell the disputed domain name on the top of its webpage. This offer for sale further shows Respondent’s lack of rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See Williams-Sonoma, Inc. v. Fees, FA 937704 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 25, 2007) (concluding that a respondent’s willingness to sell a domain name to the complainant suggests that a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in that domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)).
Respondent has registered and is using the <leanintogether.com> domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). First, Respondent has placed a general offer for sale of the domain name, which shows bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(i). See Bank of Am. Corp. v. Nw. Free Cmty. Access, FA 180704 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 30, 2003) (“Respondent's general offer of the disputed domain name registration for sale establishes that the domain name was registered in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(i).”).
In addition, Respondent uses the disputed domain name as a parked webpage, where it has placed a variety of different hyperlinks to third-party businesses. Respondent presumably profits from such activity. Therefore, Respondent is using a confusingly similar domain name to attract Internet users to its own website for commercial gain, which is bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Bank of Am. Fork v. Shen, FA 699645 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 11, 2006) (holding that the respondent’s previous use of the <bankofamericanfork.com> domain name to maintain a web directory was evidence of bad faith because the respondent presumably commercially benefited by receiving click-through fees for diverting Internet users to unrelated third-party websites).
Finally, Respondent registered the <leanintogether.com> domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the LEAN IN mark. Therefore, Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Yahoo! Inc. v. Butler, FA 744444 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 17, 2006) (finding bad faith where the respondent was "well-aware of the complainant's YAHOO! mark at the time of registration)."
Complainant having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <leanintogether.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.), Panelist
Dated: August 14, 2015
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page