Costa Del Mar, Inc. v. Yulin Chen
Claim Number: FA1808001799844
Complainant is Costa Del Mar, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by W. John Eagan of Malloy & Malloy, P.L., Florida, USA. Respondent is Yulin Chen (“Respondent”), China.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <lifecosta.com> (the “Domain Name”), registered with Godaddy.Com, Llc.
The undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Dawn Osborne as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on August 2, 2018; the Forum received payment on August 3, 2018.
On August 6, 2018, Godaddy.Com, Llc confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <lifecosta.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 August 7, 2018, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 27, 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@lifecosta.com. Also on August 7, 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.
Having received no response from Respondent, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On August 30, 2018, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Dawn Osborne 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 the owner of the trade mark COSTA registered in the USA for sunglasses with first use recorded as 2006.
The Domain Name registered in 2018 has been used for a competing site that mimics the official site of Complainant, using its logo without permission.
The Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s COSTA trade mark including it in its entirety and adding only the generic word ‘life’ and the gTLD ‘.com’ which do not serve to distinguish the Domain Name from Complainant’s mark.
Respondent is not an authorised reseller and has no trade mark rights in COSTA. Mimicking the official site of Complainant using the latter’s logo to pass a site off as an official site cannot be a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate non commercial fair use. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. Such use is confusing Internet users intending to defraud them and to phish and is registration and use in bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant is the owner of the trade mark COSTA registered in the USA for sunglasses with first use recorded as 2006.
The Domain Name registered in 2018 has been used for a site competing with Complainant that mimics the official site of Complainant and uses its logo without permission.
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.”).
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Domain Name consists of Complainant's COSTA mark (which is registered in USA for sunglasses with first use recorded as 2006), the generic word ‘life’ and the gTLD .com.
Previous panels have found confusing similarity when a respondent merely adds generic terms to a Complainant's mark. See PG&E Corp. v Anderson, D2000-1264 (WIPO Nov. 22, 2000) (finding that the respondent does not by adding common descriptive or generic terms create new or different marks nor does it alter the underling mark held by the complainant). The Panel agrees that the addition of the generic term ‘life’ to Complainant's COSTA mark does not distinguish the Domain Name from Complainant's registered trade mark pursuant to the Policy.
The gTLD .com does not serve to distinguish a Domain Name from a complainant’s mark. See Red Hat Inc v Haecke FA 726010 (Forum July 24, 2006) (concluding that the <redhat.org> domain name is identical to the complainant's red hat mark because the mere addition of the gTLD was insufficient to differentiate the disputed domain name from the mark).
Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s COSTA registered mark.
As such the Panel holds that Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been satisfied.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
Complainant has not authorised the use of its marks. There is no evidence or reason to suggest Respondent is commonly known by the Domain Name.
The web site attached to the Domain Name uses Complainant's COSTA mark and has copied Complainant’s logo so that Respondent’s site appears to be an official site of Complainant. It does not make it clear that there is no commercial connection with Complainant. The Panel finds this use is confusing. As such it cannot amount to a bona fide offering of goods and services. See Am. Intl Group Inc v Benjamin FA 944242 (Forum May 11, 2007) (finding that the respondent's use of a confusingly similar domain name to advertise services which competed with the complainant's business did not constitute a bona fide use of goods and services.)
As such the Panelist finds that Respondent does not have rights or a legitimate interest in the Domain Name and that Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
In the opinion of the Panelist, the use made of the Domain Name in relation to Respondent’s site is confusing and disruptive in that visitors to the site might reasonably believe it is connected to or approved by Complainant as it uses Complainant’s COSTA mark and its logo to sell sunglasses without permission. The use of Complainant's logo shows that Respondent is aware of Complainant and its business. Accordingly, the Panel holds that Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain Internet users to its website by creating likelihood of confusion with Complainant's trade marks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the web site likely to disrupt the business of Complainant.
As such, the Panelist believes that Complainant has made out its case that the Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith and has satisfied the third limb of the Policy under paras. 4(b)(iv) and 4(b)(iii) and there is no need to consider additional grounds of bad faith.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <lifecosta.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Dawn Osborne, Panelist
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page