Research Now Group, Inc. v. Bryan Williams
Claim Number: FA1706001736643
Complainant is Research Now Group, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Denis V. Shamo of Baker & McKenzie LLP, Texas, USA. Respondent is Bryan Williams (“Respondent”), Texas, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <valuedopinions.club>, 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 20, 2017; the Forum received payment on June 20, 2017.
On June 21, 2017, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <valuedopinions.club> 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 June 21, 2017, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 11, 2017 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@valuedopinions.club. Also on June 21, 2017, 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 13, 2017, 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, Research Now Group, Inc., is one of the premier brands of online market research panels, consumer surveys, and associated rewards programs and consulting services. Complainant first launched publicly at least as early as April 30, 2007. Complainant registered its VALUED OPINIONS mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g. Reg. No. 4,128,422, registered Apr. 17, 2012). Respondent’s <valuedopinions.club> domain name is identical to Complainant’s mark as it contains the entire mark, less the space, and simply appends the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.club.”
Respondent does not have any rights and legitimate interests in the <valuedopinions.club> domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor is Respondent affiliated with, associated with, or otherwise endorsed by Complainant. Respondent also fails to use the disputed domain name in connection with any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, Respondent uses the disputed domain name to offer directly competing services, as the resolving website encourages visitors to register in order to participate in market research panels and opinion surveys in exchange for rewards from major retailers.
Respondent registered the <valuedopinions.club> domain name in bad faith. Respondent, by registering the identical domain name, indicates Respondent’s intention to attract Internet users for commercial gain while offering competing services on the resolving webpage. Further, Respondent registered the disputed domain name with knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the VALUED OPINIONS mark.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Research Now Group, Inc., is one of the brands of online market research panels, consumer surveys, and associated rewards programs and consulting services. Complainant first launched publicly at least as early as April 30, 2007. Complainant has rights in the VALUED OPINIONS mark through registration with the USPTO (e.g. Reg. No. 4,128,422, registered Apr. 17, 2012). Respondent’s <valuedopinions.club> domain name is identical to Complainant’s mark.
Respondent, Bryan Williams, registered the <valuedopinions.club> domain name on March 4, 2017.
Respondent does not have any rights and legitimate interests in the <valuedopinions.club> domain name. Respondent uses the disputed domain name to offer directly competing services.
Respondent registered the <valuedopinions.club> domain name in bad faith.
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(f), 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 (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 VALUED OPINIONS mark through registration with the USPTO. See Humor Rainbow, Inc. v. James Lee, FA 1626154 (Forum Aug. 11, 2015) (Registration of a mark with the USPTO sufficiently confers a complainant’s rights in a mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)).
Respondent’s <valuedopinions.club> domain name is identical to Complainant’s mark as it contains the entire mark, less the space, and simply appends the gTLD “.club.”
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <valuedopinions.club> domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Respondent is not affiliated with, associated with, or endorsed by Complainant. The WHOIS information lists “Bryan Williams” as the registrant. See Navistar International Corporation v. N Rahmany, FA 1620789 (Forum June 8, 2015) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name where the complainant had never authorized the respondent to incorporate its NAVISTAR mark in any domain name registration); see also Chevron Intellectual Property LLC v. Fred Wallace, FA 1626022 (Forum July 27, 2015) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <chevron-europe.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), as the WHOIS information named “Fred Wallace” as registrant of the disputed domain name).
Respondent fails to use the <valuedopinions.club> domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Respondent uses the disputed domain name to offer services in direct competition with Complainant. Using an identical or confusingly similar domain name to offer competing services does not qualify as a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See General Motors LLC v. MIKE LEE, FA 1659965 (Forum March 10, 2016) (finding that “use of a domain to sell products and/or services that compete directly with a complainant’s business does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”).
Respondent registered and uses of the <valuedopinions.club> domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) by attracting users to the competing resolving webpage. Using an identical or confusingly similar domain name to commercially benefit while offering competing services shows bad faith registration and use. See Allianz of Am. Corp. v. Bond, FA 680624 (Forum June 2, 2006) (finding bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the respondent was diverting Internet users searching for the complainant to its own website and likely profiting); see also OneWest Bank N.A. v. Matthew Foglia, FA 1611449 (Forum April 26, 2015) (concluding that the respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to direct Internet users to a website which competed with the complainant was evidence of bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)).
Respondent registered the <valuedopinions.club> domain name with actual knowledge of the VALUED OPINIONS mark. Therefore, Respondent registered the domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Norgren GmbH v. Domain Admin / Private Registrations Aktien Gesellschaft, FA 1599884 (Forum February 25, 2014) (holding that the respondent had actual knowledge of the complainant and its rights in the mark, thus demonstrating bad faith registration under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii), where the respondent was using the disputed domain name to purposely host links related to the complainant’s field of operation).
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 <valuedopinions.club> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.), Panelist
Dated: July 17, 2017
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page