La-Z-Boy Incorporated v. Erika Slade
Claim Number: FA1803001779228
Complainant is La-Z-Boy Incorporated ("Complainant"), represented by Josh A. Partington of Harness, Dickey & Pierce, PLC, Michigan, USA. Respondent is Erika Slade ("Respondent"), Florida, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <la-z-b0y.com>, registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com.
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.
David E. Sorkin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on March 27, 2018; the Forum received payment on March 27, 2018.
On March 29, 2018, PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com confirmed by email to the Forum that the <la-z-b0y.com> domain name is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com 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 March 29, 2018, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 18, 2018 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via email to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@la-z-b0y.com. Also on March 29, 2018, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the email 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 April 23, 2018, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed David E. Sorkin 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 is a leading producer of reclining chairs and other residential furniture products. Complainant has used LA-Z-BOY and related marks in connection with its products since 1929. Complainant owns registrations for the LA-Z-BOY mark in the United States and other jurisdictions worldwide.
Respondent registered the disputed domain name <la-z-b0y.com> in February, 2018. Noting that the domain name corresponds to Complainant's registered mark, but for the substitution of a zero for the letter "O," Complainant characterizes the domain name as an instance of typosquatting. The domain name redirects to a web page composed of what appear to be pay-per-click links to furniture websites, including those of Complainant and its competitors.
Complainant states that it has not licensed or otherwise permitted Respondent to use its mark, and that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Complainant states further that it attempted to contact Respondent using the email address and physical address in the Whois registration record for the disputed domain name. In response, Complainant received only a voicemail message from a person residing at the physical address denying that anyone by Respondent's name resided there. Complainant asserts on this basis that the Whois registration data provided by Respondent is false.
Complainant notes that Respondent has registered many other domain names that are confusingly similar to famous trademarks, including <chemours-us.com>, <generalmjlls.com>, <roberthalf-us.com>, <sanofi-fr.com>, and many others. One of these domain names was the subject of a recent proceeding under the Policy, Sanofi v. Erika Slade, D2017-2346 (WIPO Feb. 26, 2018) (ordering cancellation of <sanofi-fr.com>).
Complainant contends on the above grounds that the disputed domain name <la-z-b0y.com> is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used 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.").
The disputed domain name <la-z-b0y.com> corresponds to Complainant's registered LA-Z-BOY trademark, substituting the numeral "0" for the letter "O" and appending the ".com" top-level domain. These alterations are insufficient to distinguish the domain names from Complainant's mark. See, e.g., Bop, LLC v. muster c/o muster, FA 1545924 (Forum Apr. 9, 2014) (finding <sh0pbop.com> confusingly similar to SHOPBOP); Toro Co. v. Dox Alim / Alim Lab, FA 1531691 (Forum Jan. 5, 2014) (finding <tor0.com> confusingly similar to TORO); La-Z-Boy Inc. v. Imran Shuja / La-z-boy Pvt Ltd. / Kamran Sheikh, FA 1350009 (Forum Nov. 23, 2010) (finding <la-ze-boy.com> confusingly similar to LA-Z-BOY). The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights.
Under the Policy, Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and then the burden shifts to Respondent to come forward with concrete evidence of such rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm't Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006).
The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's well-known registered mark without authorization, and its only apparent use has been for a website comprised of what presumably are pay-per-click links to Complainant and its competitors. Such use does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests. See, e.g., Robert Half International Inc. v. Robert Arran, FA 1764367 (Forum Feb. 5, 2018); Toro Co. v. Dox Alim / Alim Lab, supra.
Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name, and Respondent has failed to come forward with any evidence of such rights or interests. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has sustained its burden of proving that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
Finally, Complainant must show that the disputed domain name was registered and has been used in bad faith. Under paragraph 4(b)(iii) of the Policy, bad faith may be shown by evidence that Respondent registered the disputed domain name "primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor." Under paragraph 4(b)(iv), bad faith may be shown by evidence that "by using the domain name, [Respondent] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [Respondent's] web site 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 [Respondent's] web site or location or of a product or service on [Respondent's] web site or location."
As noted above, Respondent registered a domain name incorporating Complainant's well-known mark without authorization, and the only apparent use of the domain name has been to display pay-per-click links to Complainant and its competitors. Under the circumstances the Panel infers that Respondent registered the domain name with Complainant's mark and this type of use in mind. See, e.g., Robert Half International Inc., supra. Respondent's apparent history of registering other domain names corresponding to well-known trademarks is consistent with this inference, as is Respondent's provision of what appears to be false domain name registration data. The Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
Having considered the three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <la-z-b0y.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
David E. Sorkin, Panelist
Dated: April 24, 2018
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page