MTD Products Inc v. Bill Rodgers / Valley Power Products, Inc.
Claim Number: FA1710001756089
Complainant is MTD Products Inc (“Complainant”), represented by Christopher A. Corpus, Ohio, USA. Respondent is Bill Rodgers / Valley Power Products, Inc. (“Respondent”), Virginia, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <troybilttillerparts.com>, registered with Register.com, Inc..
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.
Richard Hill as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on October 30, 2017; the Forum received payment on October 30, 2017.
On October 30, 2017, Register.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <troybilttillerparts.com> domain name is registered with Register.com, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Register.com, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Register.com, 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 November 1, 2017, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of November 21, 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@troybilttillerparts.com. Also on November 1, 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 27, 2017, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Richard Hill 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 states that, since 1952, it has been a market leader in the design, manufacture and sale of outdoor power equipment worldwide. It designs and manufacturers for sale to the consuming public walk-behind lawnmowers, riding lawnmowers and tractors, snow throwers, string trimmers, edgers. chipper/shredders, log splitters, rear and front tine tillers, hand-held equipment and related parts. The TROY-BILT mark has been used in conjunction with the manufacture and sale of outdoor power equipment dating back to 1967. Complainant has invested significant sums of money to maintain the TROY-BILT mark in the outdoor power equipment industry. Complainant uses the TROY-BILT mark to provide and market its products and services. Complainant has rights in the TROY-BILT mark based upon registration in the United States in 1989.
Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its TROY-BILT mark as it contains the mark in its entirety--less the hyphen--merely adding the descriptive terms “tiller” and “parts” along with the generic top-level-domain (“gTLD”) “.com.” Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
According to Complainant, Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and Complainant has not granted Respondent permission or license to use the TROY-BILT mark for any purpose. Respondent is not using the disputed domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or for a legitimate non-commercial or fair use. Rather, Respondent is passively holding the disputed domain name. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
Further, says Complainant, Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent is attempting to disrupt Complainant’s business. Respondent is attempting to attract for commercial gain Internet users to Respondent’s website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the web site or location of a product or service on Respondent’s website or location. Respondent has employed a privacy service to hide its identity. Finally, Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the TROY-BILT mark. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant owns the mark TROY-BILT and uses it to market various products in the outdoor power equipment industry, including tillers. The mark is well known.
Complainant’s rights in its marks date back to 1989.
The disputed domain name was registered in 2017.
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its marks.
The disputed domain name is not being used.
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 disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s TROY-BILT mark as it contains the mark in its entirety—less the hyphen---and adds the descriptive terms “tiller” and “parts,” as well as the gTLD “.com.” Panels have consistently found that slight differences between domain names and registered marks, such as the addition of words that describe the goods or services in connection with the mark do not distinguish the domain name from the mark incorporated therein. See Traditional Medicinals, Inc. v. Flippa Chick, FA1006001328702 (Forum July 15, 2010) (“Respondent’s disputed domain name contains Complainant’s SMOOTH MOVE mark in its entirety after removing the space separating the terms of the mark, adds the descriptive terms “herbal tea” and adds the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.” The Panel finds that the addition of descriptive terms creates a confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and Complainant’s mark.”). Similarly, the addition of a gTLD is irrelevant in determining whether the disputed domain name is confusingly similar. See Trip Network Inc. v. Alviera, FA 914943 (Forum Mar. 27, 2007) (concluding that the affixation of a gTLD to a domain name is irrelevant to a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis). Thus the Panel finds that the disputed domain name does not contain changes that would sufficiently distinguish it from the TROY-BILT mark under the Policy, and it finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark.
Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use the TROY-BILT mark in any way. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name: in the absence of a response WHOIS information can support a finding that a respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. See Alaska Air Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines v. Song Bin, FA1408001574905 (Forum Sept. 17, 2014) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name as demonstrated by the WHOIS information and based on the fact that the complainant had not licensed or authorized the respondent to use its ALASKA AIRLINES mark.). The Panel notes that the WHOIS information of record identifies registrant as “Bill Rodgers / Valley Power Products, Inc.” Additionally, lack of evidence in the record to indicate that the respondent has been authorized to register a domain name using a complainant’s mark supports a finding that respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. See Navistar International Corporation v. N Rahmany, FA1505001620789 (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). The Panel therefore finds under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) that Respondent has not been commonly known by the disputed domain name.
Respondent is not using the disputed domain name. Rather, Respondent is passively holding the disputed domain name. When Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with an active website, the Panel may find that Respondent is not using the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services. See Kohler Co. v xi long chen, FA 1737910 (Forum Aug. 4, 2017) (”Respondent has not made a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the domain. Respondent’s <kohler-corporation.com> resolves to an inactive webpage displaying the message “website coming soon!”). Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).
Respondent (who did not reply to Complainant’s contentions) has not presented any plausible explanation for its use of Complainant’s mark. In accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel shall draw such inferences from Respondent’s failure to reply as it considers appropriate. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent did not have a legitimate use in mind when registering the disputed domain name.
Indeed, the disputed domain name is not being used. According to paragraph 3.3 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0): “From the inception of the UDRP, panelists have found that the non-use of a domain name (including a blank or “coming soon” page) would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. While panelists will look at the totality of the circumstances in each case, factors that have been considered relevant in applying the passive holding doctrine include: (i) the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant’s mark, (ii) the failure of the respondent to submit a response or to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good-faith use, (iii) the respondent’s concealing its identity or use of false contact details (noted to be in breach of its registration agreement), and (iv) the implausibility of any good faith use to which the domain name may be put.”
In the present case, Complainant’s trademark is well known. It is difficult to envisage any use of the disputed domain name that would not violate the Policy, see Morgan Stanley v. TONY / shentony, FA 1637186 (Forum Oct. 10, 2015) (“Respondent registered the disputed domain name [MORGANSTANLEY.ONLINE] in bad faith because . . . it is difficult to envisage any use of the disputed domain name that would not violate the Policy”); see also Singapore Airlines Ltd. v. European Travel Network, D2000-0641 (WIPO Aug. 29, 2000) (where selection of disputed domain name is so obviously connected to complainant’s well-known trademark, use by someone with no connection with complainant suggests opportunistic bad faith); see also Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc., Sheraton Int’l IP, LLC, Westin Hotel Mgmt., L.P. v. Jingjing Tang, D2014-1040 (WIPO Aug. 19, 2014) (“The Panel finds that the [WESTIN] Marks are not such that could legitimately be adopted by traders other than for the purpose of creating an impression of an association with Complainant. Thus, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain names were registered in bad faith”).
There has been no response to the Complaint. Respondent used a privacy service, that is, it concealed its identity. Given these circumstances, the Panel finds that, in this particular case, a finding of bad faith use can be inferred even though the disputed domain name is not being actively used. See Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, D2000-0003 (WIPO Feb. 18, 2000).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <troybilttillerparts.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Richard Hill, Panelist
Dated: November 27, 2017
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page