Shane Malek v. ROBERT HENDERSON
Claim Number: FA1512001650491
Complainant is Shane Malek (“Complainant”), represented by Howard Neu of Law Office of Howard Neu, P.A., Florida, United States. Respondent is ROBERT HENDERSON (“Respondent”), Vermont, United States.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <scalpmedreview69.com> and <scalpmed-reviews.com>, registered with eNom, Inc.
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.
Debrett G. Lyons as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on December 2, 2015; the Forum received payment on December 2, 2015.
On December 3, 2015, eNom, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <scalpmedreview69.com> and <scalpmed-reviews.com> domain names are registered with eNom, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. eNom, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the eNom, 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 December 7, 2015, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of December 28, 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@scalpmedreview69.com, postmaster@scalpmed-reviews.com. Also on December 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 December 30, 2015, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Debrett G. Lyons 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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant asserts trademark rights in SCALP MED and alleges that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to its trademark.
Complainant alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.
Complainant alleges that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain names in bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
The factual findings pertinent to the decision in this case are that:
1. Complainant sells a topical hair growth system by reference to the trademark SCALP MED which is the subject of United States Trademark Reg. No. 3,260,262, registered July 10, 2007;
2. the disputed domain name <scalpmedreview69.com> domain name was registered on April 6, 2014 and the <scalpmed-reviews.com> domain name was registered on September 28, 2008;
3. the disputed domain names resolve to a website promoting the sale of a competing product under the guise of reviewing Complainant’s product;
4. there is no commercial agreement between the parties and Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use its trademark or to register any domain name incorporating its trademark.
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.
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires a two-fold enquiry – a threshold investigation into whether a complainant has rights in a trade mark, followed by an assessment of whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that trade mark.
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy does not distinguish between registered and unregistered trademark rights. It is well established by decisions under this Policy that a trademark registered with a national authority is evidence of trademark rights. Since Complainant provides evidence of a United States Patent and Trademark Office trademark registration for SCALP MED, the Panel is satisfied that it has trademark rights in that expression (see State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Periasami Malain, FA 705262 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 19, 2006) (“Complainant’s registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office of the trademark, STATE FARM, establishes its rights in the STATE FARM mark pursuant to Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i).”); see also Mothers Against Drunk Driving v. phix, FA 174052 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 25, 2003) finding that the complainant’s registration of the MADD mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office establishes the complainant’s rights in the mark for purposes of Policy paragraph 4(a)(i)).
The disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the trademark since they differ from the trademark in inconsequential ways, namely, addition of generic descriptors and the gTLD and omission of punctuation (see Rollerblade, Inc. v. McCrady, D2000-0429 (WIPO June 25, 2000) holding gTLDs generally non-distinctive; Am. Online Inc. v. Chinese ICQ Network, D2000-0808 (WIPO Aug. 31, 2000) finding that the addition of the numeral 4 in the domain name <4icq.com> did not distinguish that domain name from the mark ICQ and was therefore confusingly similar to the mark; Omnitel Pronto Italia S.p.A. v. Bella, D2000-1641 (WIPO Mar. 12, 2001) likewise finding the <omnitel2000.com> domain name confusingly similar to the OMNITEL mark; Bond & Co. Jewelers, Inc. v. Tex. Int’l Prop. Assocs., FA 937650 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 30, 2007) finding that the elimination of spaces between terms does not create distinctiveness; Alticor Inc v. Cao Mai, FA1521565 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 5, 2013) stating that, “the domain name buy-artistry.com is unquestionably confusingly similar to [c]omplainant’s famous ARTISTRY mark” as a result of the domain name differing from the complainant’s mark by no more than the generic term “buy” and a hyphen).
Panel is satisfied that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark and so Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy states that any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be proved based on its evaluation of all evidence presented, shall demonstrate rights or legitimate interests to a domain name for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy:
(i) before any notice to you of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or
(ii) you (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the domain name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
(iii) you are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trade mark or service mark at issue.
Complainant need only make out a prima facie case that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names, after which the onus shifts to Respondent to rebut that case by demonstrating those rights or interests (see Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000‑0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000).
The publicly available WHOIS information identifies Respondent as “ROBERT HENDERSON” and so there is no prima facie evidence that Respondent might be commonly known by the disputed domain names. There is no evidence that Respondent has any trademark rights. Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use its trademark or to register any domain name incorporating its trademark. Further, the evidence is that the disputed domain name resolves to a website offering a topical hair replacement treatment said to be better than Complainant’s product bearing the trademark. That use is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use (see Coryn Group, Inc. v. Media Insight, FA 198959 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 5, 2003) finding that the respondent was not using the domain names for a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use because the respondent used the names to divert Internet users to a website that offered services that competed with those offered by the complainant under its marks).
Accordingly, the onus shifts to Respondent to establish a legitimate interest in the domain names and in the absence of a Response, the prima facie case against Respondent is not met and so Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or interests and so finds that Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy.
Complainant must prove on the balance of probabilities both that the disputed domain names were registered in bad faith and used in bad faith.
Further guidance on that requirement is found in paragraph 4(b) of the Policy, which sets out four circumstances, any one of which is taken to be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith if established.
The four specified circumstances are:
‘(i) circumstances indicating that the respondent has registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the respondent’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
(ii) the respondent has registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
(iii) the respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) by using the domain name, respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, internet users to respondent’s website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on the site or location.’
Panel finds that Respondent’s actions fall squarely under paragraph 4(b)(iii) above. Respondent is a competitor of Complainant. Its websites directly refer to Complainant’s product and trademark. Those website assert that another product promoted by Respondent is better in various ways than Complainant’s product. Panel finds that Respondent’s primary motivation in registering the domain names was to disrupt Complainant’s business.
Further, to the extent that one of the domain names was registered many years ago and may have, at one time, promoted Complainant’s goods (a matter of which there is no evidence) then Panel would nonetheless find that the current use of the domain names is caught by paragraph 4(b)(iv) above.
Panel finds registration and use in bad faith and the third limb of the Policy established.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <scalpmedreview69.com> and <scalpmed-reviews.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Debrett G. Lyons, Panelist
Dated: January 2, 2016
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page