TrueCar, Inc. v. Ricardo Lopez / Internetricky.com Inc
Claim Number: FA1710001752381
Complainant is TrueCar, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Alyssa M. Worsham of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, California, USA. Respondent is Ricardo Lopez / Internetricky.com Inc (“Respondent”), Florida, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <truecarlatino.com>, <truecarcreditlatino.com> and <truetradelatino.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.
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.
Kenneth L. Port as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on October 5, 2017; the Forum received payment on October 5, 2017.
On October 9, 2017, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <truecarlatino.com>, <truecarcreditlatino.com> and <truetradelatino.com> domain names are registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. 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 October 11, 2017, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of October 31, 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@truecarlatino.com, postmaster@truecarcreditlatino.com, postmaster@truetradelatino.com. Also on October 11, 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 November 3, 2017, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Kenneth L. Port 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, TrueCar, Inc., is an online business that provides automobile pricing information and access to a network of thousands of certified dealers. Complainant uses its TRUECAR and TRUETRADE marks to promote its products and services and established rights in the mark through registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., TRUECAR—Reg. No. 3,759,175, registered Mar. 9, 2010; TRUETRADE—Reg. No. 4.491.339, registered Mar. 4, 2014). See Compl. Ex. D. Respondent’s <truecarlatino.com>, <truecarcreditlatino.com> and <truetradelatino.com> are confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark because each incorporates either Complainant’s TRUECAR or TRUETRADE mark and appends generic terms, as well as the generic top-level domain “gTLD” “.com.”
Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its TRUECAR mark in any fashion, and Respondent is not commonly known by any of the infringing domain names. Respondent is not using any of the disputed domain names in connection with any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent uses the domain name to divert Internet users from Complainant’s site to Respondent’s competing site.
Respondent registered and is using the domain names in bad faith. Respondent attempts to disrupt Complainant’s business by diverting Internet users searching for Complainant’s site to Respondent’s site. Respondent also had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the TRUECAR and TRUETRADE marks due to the fame of the mark.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. Respondent registered the disputed domain names as follows:
<truecarlatino.com>……………………………………………November, 6, 2015
<truecarcreditlatino.com>…………………………………… August 25, 2017
<truetradelatino.com> ……………………………………… August 24, 2017
The Panel finds that the dispute domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s valid and subsisting trademark; that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in or to the disputed domain names; and that Respondent has engaged in bad faith use and registration of the disputed domain names.
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.”).
The Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademarks, TRUECAR and TRUETRADE. Complainant has adequately plead its rights and interests in and to these trademarks. Respondent arrives at the disputed domain names by merely adding the generic word “latino” to the disputed domain names and the g TLD “.com.” This is insufficient to distinguish the disputed domain names from Complainant’s trademarks.
As such, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademarks.
The Panel further finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in or to the disputed domain names. Respondent has no license or permission to register these disputed domain names. Respondent is also not commonly known by the disputed domain names.
Respondent is not using any of the disputed domain names in connection with any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent uses the disputed domain names to divert Internet users from Complainant’s site to Respondent’s competing site. This is not evidence of a bona fide offering of goods or services or a noncommercial fair use.
As such, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in or to the disputed domain names.
The Panel further finds that Respondent has engaged in bad faith use and registration of the disputed domain names. Complainant argues that Respondent’s registration of the three domain names at issue here is part of a pattern of such bad faith registrations. A showing that a respondent has registered other domain names incorporating famous marks can demonstrate a pattern of bad faith registration which indicates a given registration has been in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). See Philip Morris Inc. v. r9.net, D2003-0004 (WIPO Feb. 28, 2003) (finding that the respondent’s previous registration of domain names such as <pillsbury.net>, <schlitz.net>, <biltmore.net> and <honeywell.net> and subsequent registration of the disputed <marlboro.com> domain name evidenced bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii)). Complainant contends that Respondent registered the disputed domain names incorporating marks of famous automobile-related companies. See Compl. Ex. H (WhoIs information for domain names including <toyotahispanic.com>, showing Respondent as registrant). Additionally, Complainant contends many more infringing domain names were registered using Respondent’s email address of <internettricky@gmail.com>. Id. The Panel finds that Respondent registered the disputed domain names in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii) as a part of a pattern of such bad faith registrations.
Complainant also argues Respondent registered and is using the domain names in bad faith. Respondent attempts to disrupt Complainant’s business by diverting Internet users searching for Complainant’s site to Respondent’s competing site. Use of a domain name to disrupt a complainant’s business is evidence of bad faith registration and use per Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv). See DatingDirect.com Ltd. v. Aston, FA 593977 (Forum Dec. 28, 2005) (“Respondent is appropriating Complainant’s mark to divert Complainant’s customers to Respondent’s competing business. The Panel finds this diversion is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).”); see also CAN Financial Corporation v. William Thomson / CNA Insurance, FA1401001541484 (Forum Feb. 28, 2014) (finding that the respondent had engaged in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv), by using a confusingly similar domain name to attract Internet users to its own website where it sold competing insurance services). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain names in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and/or (iv).
Complainant further contends that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the TRUECAR and TRUETRADE marks due to the fame of the marks. Given the totality of the circumstances and the fame of the trademarks, the Panel agrees and finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s trademarks and its rights in and to those marks.
As such, the Panel finds that Respondent has engaged in bad faith use and registration of the disputed domain names.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be granted.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <truecarlatino.com>, <truecarcreditlatino.com> and <truetradelatino.com> domain names transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
Kenneth L. Port, Panelist
Dated: November 6, 2017
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page