DECISION

 

Haas Automation, Inc. v. Jim Fraser

Claim Number: FA1507001627211

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Haas Automation, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Farah P. Bhatti of Baker & Hostetler LLP, California, USA.  Respondent is Jim Fraser (“Respondent”), United Kingdom.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <haasforsale.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.

 

PANEL

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.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on July 2, 2015; the Forum received payment on July 6, 2015.

 

On July 2, 2015, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <haasforsale.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 7, 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@haasforsale.com.  Also on July 7, 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 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.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

1.    Respondent’s <haasforsale.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s HAAS mark.

 

2.    Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <haasforsale.com> domain name.

 

3.    Respondent registered and uses the <haasforsale.com> domain name in bad faith.

 

B.  Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant uses the HAAS mark in connection with the manufacture of machine tools and related services.  Complainant has registered the HAAS mark and variations of the HAAS mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., “HAAS,” Reg. No. 4,583,627, registered Aug. 12, 2014).

 

Respondent registered the <haasforsale.com> domain name on January 15, 2015, and uses it to divert Internet traffic to click-through hyperlinks that lead to competitors of Complainant. 

 

DISCUSSION

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.”).

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

 

The Panel finds that Complainant’s USPTO registrations for the HAAS mark sufficiently demonstrate its rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).  See Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Bonds, FA 873143 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 16, 2007) where the panel similarly found that a USPTO trademark registration adequately demonstrates a complainant’s rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). 

 

Respondent’s <haasforsale.com> domain name incorporates Complainant’s HAAS mark and merely adds the generic phrase “for sale” and the gTLD “.com.”  Panels routinely find such alterations insufficient to distinguish a domain name from a complainant’s mark.  See Quixtar Inv., Inc. v. Smithberger, D2000-0138 (WIPO Apr. 19, 2000) (finding that because the domain name <quixtar-sign-up.com> incorporates in its entirety the complainant’s distinctive mark, QUIXTAR, the domain name is confusingly similar); see also Reese v. Morgan, FA 917029 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 5, 2007) (finding that the mere addition of the generic top-level domain “.com” is insufficient to differentiate a disputed domain name from a mark).  Accordingly, the Panel finds that the <haasforsale.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s HAAS mark.

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). 

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

 

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 Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).  The WHOIS information lists “Jim Fraser” as the registrant of the disputed domain name.  The Panel finds that there is no evidence suggesting that Respondent has rights under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).  See M. Shanken Commc’ns v. WORLDTRAVELERSONLINE.COM, FA 740335 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 3, 2006) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <cigaraficionada.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) based on the WHOIS information and other evidence in the record). 

 

Further, Complainant argues that Respondent is not making a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).  Complainant shows that Respondent operates the website at <haasforsale.com> to attract Internet traffic to its click-through hyperlinks, leading to websites that compete with Complainant.  Panels have found that such use fails to constitute rights and legitimate interests under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii).  See Compania Mexicana de Aviacion, S.A. de C.V. v. Bigfoot Ventures LLC, FA 1195961 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 14, 2008) (holding that the respondent had not demonstrated a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use when “the website resolving from the disputed domain name displays links to travel products and services, which directly compete with Complainant’s business”).  Thus, the Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). 

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

 

Respondent diverts Internet users to its website at <haasforsale.com> for commercial gain, presumably through the competing hyperlinks found at the website.  Prior panels have found such competing use to be bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).  See Associated Newspapers Ltd. v. Domain Manager, FA 201976 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 19, 2003) stated, “Respondent's prior use of the <mailonsunday.com> domain name is evidence of bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) because the domain name provided links to Complainant's competitors and Respondent presumably commercially benefited from the misleading domain name by receiving ‘click-through-fees.’”  The Panel accordingly finds that Respondent has registered and used the <haasforsale.com> domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).

 

Complainant argues that in light of the fame and notoriety of Complainant's HAAS mark and Respondent’s inclusion of hyperlinks that compete with Complainant, it is inconceivable that Respondent could have registered the <haasforsale.com> domain name without actual and/or constructive knowledge of Complainant's rights in the mark.  The Panel agrees and finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the mark prior to registering the disputed domain name, which is evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).  See Univision Comm'cns Inc. v. Norte, FA 1000079 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 16, 2007) (rejecting the respondent's contention that it did not register the disputed domain name in bad faith since the panel found that the respondent had knowledge of the complainant's rights in the UNIVISION mark when registering the disputed domain name).

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). 

 

DECISION

Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <haasforsale.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist

Dated:  August 4, 2015

 

 

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page