Hunter Fan Company v. DOMAIN MAY BE FOR SALE, CHECK AFTERNIC.COM Domain Admin / Domain Registries Foundation
Claim Number: FA1802001770590
Complainant is Hunter Fan Company (“Complainant”), represented by Wendy L. Robertson of Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC, Tennessee, USA. Respondent is DOMAIN MAY BE FOR SALE, CHECK AFTERNIC.COM Domain Admin / Domain Registries Foundation (“Respondent”), represented by William A. Delgado of WILLENKEN WILSON LOH & DELGADO LLP, California.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <fixmycasablancablancafan.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.
Dr. Katalin Szamosi as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on February 6, 2018; the Forum received payment on February 6, 2018.
On Feb 07, 2018, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <fixmycasablancablancafan.com> 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 February 8, 2018, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 28, 2018 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@fixmycasablancablancafan.com. Also on February 8, 2018, 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.
A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on February 26, 2018.
On February 28, 2018, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Dr. Katalin Szamosi 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.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant was found in 1974 and began selling ceiling fans under the CASABLANCA mark in 1975. Complainant has rights in the CASABLANCA mark based upon its registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g. Reg. No. 1,073,112, registered Sep. 13, 1977; Reg. No. 2,253,984, registered June 15, 1999). See Compl. Ex. 3. Respondent’s <fixmycasablancablancafan.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s CASABLANCA mark, as the domain name incorporates the mark in its entirety, repeating the term “blanca,” and adds the generic terms “fix” and “my,” as well as the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <fixmycasablancablancafan.com> domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Complainant authorized or licensed Respondent to use the CASABLANCA mark in any manner. Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name does not amount to a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, Respondent uses the domain name to display links to third-party websites, including competitors of Complainant.
Respondent registered and is using the <fixmycasablancablancafan.com> domain name in bad faith. The registration and use of the domain name is part of a pattern of bad faith cybersquatting conduct. Further, Respondent’s use of the domain name to display competitive third party links. Additionally, Respondent clearly had actual or constructive knowledge of Complainant and its mark at the time it registered and subsequently used the domain name. Finally, Respondent’s “consent to transfer” approach implemented in order to avoid the entry of adverse UDRP decisions is further evidence of bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent owns a portfolio of generic and descriptive domain names which it acquired through lawful and fair methods. Respondent has a dispute-resolution policy whereby it invites putative complainants to contact it regarding domain names that complainants believe violate a trademark. It has a liberal transfer policy whereby it usually agrees to voluntarily transfer domain names, irrespective of the legitimacy of the complainant’s arguments in order to avoid the time and expense of administrative hearings.
Respondent was not aware of Complainant or its marks. Upon learning of this matter, both Respondent and its legal representative contacted Complainant to offer a voluntary transfer of the domain name at issue. Complainant did not respond.
Respondent therefore states it is willing to voluntarily transfer the domain name without admitting fault or liability. Respondent requests the transfer be ordered without findings of fact or conclusions as to Policy ¶ 4(a).
Respondent does not respond to the allegations in the Complaint. The Panel notes that the <fixmycasablancablancafan.com> domain name was created January 2, 2018.
The Panel will not make any finding of fact for the reasons explained below.
Preliminary Issue: Multiple Complainants
In the instant proceedings, there appear to be two Complainants. Paragraph 3(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”) provides that “[a]ny person or entity may initiate an administrative proceeding by submitting a complaint.” The Forum’s Supplemental Rule 1(e) defines “The Party Initiating a Complaint Concerning a Domain Name Registration” as a “single person or entity claiming to have rights in the domain name, or multiple persons or entities who have a sufficient nexus who can each claim to have rights to all domain names listed in the Complaint.”
There appear to be two Complainants in this matter. The listed Complainant is Hunter Fan Company; but Complainant identifies itself as Casablanca Fan Company in the Complaint itself. Complainant makes no explanation of this discrepancy.
Previous panels have interpreted the Forum’s Supplemental Rule 1(e) to allow multiple parties to proceed as one party where they can show a sufficient link to each other. For example, in Vancouver Org. Comm. for the 2010 Olympic and Paralymic Games & Int’l Olympic Comm. v. Malik, FA 666119 (Forum May 12, 2006), the panel stated:
It has been accepted that it is permissible for two complainants to submit a single complaint if they can demonstrate a link between the two entities such as a relationship involving a license, a partnership or an affiliation that would establish the reason for the parties bringing the complaint as one entity.
The Panel accepts that the evidence in the Complaint is sufficient to establish a sufficient link between the Complainants, therefore they can be as a single entity in this proceeding.
Preliminary Issue: Consent to Transfer
Panel finds that in a circumstance such as this, where Respondent has not contested the transfer of the disputed domain name but instead agrees to transfer the domain name in question to Complainant, the Panel foregoes the traditional UDRP analysis and orders an immediate transfer of the <fixmycasablancablancafan.com> domain name. See Boehringer Ingelheim Int’l GmbH v. Modern Ltd. – Cayman Web Dev., FA 133625 (Forum Jan. 9, 2003) (transferring the domain name registration where the respondent stipulated to the transfer); see also Malev Hungarian Airlines, Ltd. v. Vertical Axis Inc., FA 212653 (Forum Jan. 13, 2004) (“In this case, the parties have both asked for the domain name to be transferred to the Complainant . . . Since the requests of the parties in this case are identical, the Panel has no scope to do anything other than to recognize the common request, and it has no mandate to make findings of fact or of compliance (or not) with the Policy.”); see also Disney Enters., Inc. v. Morales, FA 475191 (Forum June 24, 2005) (“[U]nder such circumstances, where Respondent has agreed to comply with Complainant’s request, the Panel felt it to be expedient and judicial to forego the traditional UDRP analysis and order the transfer of the domain names.”).
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <fixmycasablancablancafan.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant
Dr. Katlain Szamosi Panelist
Dated: March 5, 2018
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page