Industrial Magnetics, Inc. v. Unique Dzine
Claim Number: FA1511001650167
Complainant is Industrial Magnetics, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Marshall G. MacFarlane of Young, Basile, Hanlon & MacFarlane PC, Michigan, United States. Respondent is Unique Dzine (“Respondent”), India.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <industrialmagnetic.com>, registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com.
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 November 30, 2015; the Forum received payment on November 30, 2015.
On December 1, 2015, PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <industrialmagnetic.com> domain name is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com 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 December 1, 2015, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of December 21, 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@industrialmagnetic.com. Also on December 1, 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 December 28, 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 uses its INDUSTRIAL MAGNETICS mark in connection with permanent magnets and electromagnets for industrial applications. Complainant has registered the INDUSTRIAL MAGNETICS mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 3,284,113, registered August 28, 2007), which demonstrates its rights in its mark. The <industrialmagnetic.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark as it wholly incorporates Complainant’s mark and merely eliminates the spacing between the words of Complainant’s mark, eliminates the “s,” thereby making “magnetics” singular, and adds the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.”
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. First, Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name or any variant of Complainant’s mark. Second, Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant’s mark. Finally, Respondent is not making a bona fide offering of goods or services through the disputed domain name or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, Respondent’s disputed domain name resolves to an inactive website.
Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith because Respondent has failed to make an active use of the disputed domain name.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Industrial Magnetics, Inc., uses its INDUSTRIAL MAGNETICS mark in connection with permanent magnets and electromagnets for industrial applications. Complainant has rights in the INDUSTRIAL MAGNETICS mark through registration with the USPTO (Reg. No. 3,284,113, registered August 28, 2007). The <industrialmagnetic.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark
Respondent, Unique Dzine, registered the <industrialmagnetic.com> domain name on June 21, 2013. Respondent’s disputed domain name resolves to an inactive 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.”).
Complainant has rights in the INDUSTRIAL MAGNETICS mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through registration with the USPTO. 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 <industrialmagnetic.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s INDUSTRIAL MAGNETICS mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) as it wholly incorporates Complainant’s mark and merely eliminates the spacing between the words of Complainant’s mark, eliminates the “s,” thereby making “magnetics” singular, and adds the gTLD “.com).
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <industrialmagnetic.com> domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). Complainant has not licensed or authorized Respondent to use Complainant’s mark. The WHOIS information lists “Unique Dzine” as registrant. See Tercent Inc. v. Lee Yi, FA 139720 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 10, 2003) (stating “nothing in [the respondent’s] WHOIS information implies that [the respondent] is ‘commonly known by’ the disputed domain name” as one factor in determining that Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) does not apply).
Respondent is not using the <industrialmagnetic.com> domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). Specifically, Respondent’s disputed domain name does not resolve to an active website. See Bloomberg L.P. v. SC Media Servs. & Info. SRL, FA 296583 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 2, 2004) (“Respondent is wholly appropriating Complainant’s mark and is not using the <bloomberg.ro> domain name in connection with an active website. The Panel finds that the [failure to make an active use] of a domain name that is identical to Complainant’s mark is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and it is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”).
Respondent has engaged in bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) because Respondent has failed to make any active use of its disputed domain name. See DCI S.A. v. Link Commercial Corp., D2000-1232 (WIPO Dec. 7, 2000) (concluding that the respondent’s [failure to make an active use] of the domain name satisfies the requirement of ¶ 4(a)(iii) of the Policy).
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 <industrialmagnetic.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.), Panelist
Dated: January 11, 2016
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page