Garrett Transportation I Inc. v. Jakub Winkler
Claim Number: FA1903001833506
Complainant is Garrett Transportation I Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Lauren B. Emerson of Leason Ellis LLP, New York, USA. Respondent is Jakub Winkler (“Respondent”), Czech Republic.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <garrett-motion.com>, registered with Tucows Domains Inc.
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.
Ho Hyun Nahm, Esq. as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on March 11, 2019; the Forum received payment on March 11, 2019.
On March 12, 2019 and March 13, 2019, Tucows Domains Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <garrett-motion.com> domain name is registered with Tucows Domains Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Tucows Domains Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Tucows Domains 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 March 20, 2019, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 9, 2019 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@garrett-motion.com. Also on March 20, 2019, 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 April 10, 2019, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Ho Hyun Nahm, Esq. 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
i) Complainant is a leading developer of turbo-charging, electric boosting, and automotive software solution technologies in the global transportation industry. Complainant has rights in the GARRETT mark through its registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g. Reg. No. 1,268,341, registered Feb. 21, 1984). See Compl. Annex A. Respondent’s <garrett-motion.com> domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark as it adds a hyphen, the generic/descriptive term “motion,” and the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).
ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <garrett-motion.com> domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Complainant authorized, licensed, or otherwise permitted Respondent to use the mark. Respondent also does not use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, Respondent fails to make any use of the domain name.
iii) Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent fails to make an active use of the domain name. Further, Respondent opportunistically registered the disputed domain name less than one month after Honeywell released a press statement regarding the transportation system business, which was well known for GARRETT-branded goods and services. See Compl. Annex D. Moreover, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s GARRETT mark at the time it registered the disputed domain name given Complainant’s longstanding use of the mark and fame associated with it.
B. Respondent
Respondent did not submit a response in this proceeding.
1. Respondent registered the <garrett-motion.com> domain name on June 8, 2018.
2. Complainant has established rights in the GARRETT mark through its registration of the mark with the USPTO (e.g. Reg. No. 1,268,341, registered Feb. 21, 1984).
3. The disputed domain name remains inactive.
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 set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at ¶ 4.3; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (“Because Complainant did not produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations [. . .] the Panel finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint”).
Complainant claims rights in the GARRETT mark through its registration of the mark with the USPTO (e.g. Reg. No. 1,268,341, registered Feb. 21, 1984). See Compl. Annex A. Registration of a mark with the USPTO sufficiently confers a complainant’s rights in a mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See DIRECTV, LLC v. The Pearline Group, FA 1818749 (Forum Dec. 30, 2018) (“Complainant’s ownership of a USPTO registration for DIRECTV demonstrate its rights in such mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”). Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has established rights in the GARRETT mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Next, Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark as it adds a hyphen, the generic/descriptive term “motion,” and the “.com” gTLD. Similar changes in a registered mark have failed to sufficiently distinguish a domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Microsoft Corporation v. Thong Tran Thanh, FA 1653187 (Forum Jan. 21, 2016) (determining that confusing similarity exists where [a disputed domain name] contains Complainant’s entire mark and differs only by the addition of a generic or descriptive phrase and top-level domain, the differences between the domain name and its contained trademark are insufficient to differentiate one from the other for the purposes of the Policy); see also Blizzard Entertainment, Inc. v. XINXIU ZENG / haimin liang, FA 1736365 (Forum July 19, 2017) (finding that the addition of punctuation—specifically, a hyphen—did not sufficiently distinguish the disputed domain name from complainant’s registered mark). The Panel therefore finds that the <garrett-motion.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the GARRETT mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)); see also Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) (“Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests”).
Complainant contends that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <garrett-motion.com> domain name, as Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Complainant authorized, licensed, or otherwise permitted Respondent to use the mark. Relevant information includes the WHOIS, assertions by a complainant regarding the nature of its relationship with a respondent, and other evidence in the record to support these assertions. See Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Suzen Khan / Nancy Jain / Andrew Stanzy, FA 1741129 (Forum Aug. 16, 2017) (finding that respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names when the identifying information provided by WHOIS was unrelated to the domain names or respondent’s use of the same); see also Google LLC v. Bhawana Chandel / Admission Virus, FA 1799694 (Forum Sep. 4, 2018) (concluding that Respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name where “the WHOIS of record identifies the Respondent as “Bhawana Chandel,” and no information in the record shows that Respondent was authorized to use Complainant’s mark in any way.”). The WHOIS identifies “Jakub Winkler” as the registrant, and nothing in the record indicates that Complainant authorized Respondent to use the mark for any purpose. Accordingly, the Panel agrees that Respondent is not commonly known by the <garrett-motion.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
Next, Complainant argues that Respondent fails to make any use of the domain name. Failure to make active use of a confusingly similar domain name can evince a lack of rights and legitimate interests under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii). See Dell Inc. v. link growth / Digital Marketing, FA 1785283 (Forum June 7, 2018) (“Respondent’s domain names currently display template websites lacking any substantive content. The Panel finds that Respondent has does not have rights or legitimate interests with respect of the domain name per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).”). Complainant does not provide any evidence to further this assertion. As a result of the Panel's independent search, and as the Panel agrees, the Panel finds that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).
The Panel finds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case that arises from the considerations above. All of these matters go to make out the prima facie case against Respondent. As Respondent has not filed a Response or attempted by any other means to rebut the prima facie case against it, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
The examples of bad faith registration and use set forth in paragraph 4(b) of the Policy are not meant to be exhaustive of all circumstances from which bad faith may be found. See, e.g., Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, D2000-0003 (WIPO Feb. 18, 2000). The overriding objective of the Policy is to curb the abusive registration of domain names in circumstances where the registrant seeks to profit from and exploit the trademark of another. See, e.g., Match.com, LP v. BillZag and NWLAWS.ORG, D2004-0230 (WIPO June 2, 2004). While Complainant has not made any arguments that would fit within the bounds of Policy ¶ 4(b) elements, the Panel therefore considers Respondent’s actions under a nonexclusive inquiry of Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Complainant argues that Respondent fails to make an active use of the domain name. Inactively holding a confusingly similar domain name can evince bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See VideoLink, Inc. v. Xantech Corporation, FA1503001608735 (Forum May 12, 2015) (“Failure to actively use a domain name is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”). The Panel agrees that the passive holding of a domain name does not necessarily circumvent a finding that the domain name is being used in bad faith within the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. See Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003 (finding that in considering whether the passive holding of a domain name, following a bad faith registration of it, satisfies the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(iii), the panel must give close attention to all the circumstances of the respondent’s behavior, and a remedy can be obtained under the Policy only if those circumstances show that the respondent’s passive holding amounts to acting in bad faith.)
The particular circumstances of this case that the Panel has considered are:
i) Complainant’s longstanding use of the mark GARRETT and the fame associated with it; and
ii) Respondent has provided no evidence whatsoever of any actual or contemplated good faith use by it of the disputed domain name.
Taking into account all of the above, the Panel concludes that Respondent’s passive holding of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith under Policy, paragraph 4(a)(iii) and that Respondent is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
Next, Complainant claims that Respondent opportunistically registered the disputed domain name less than one month after Honeywell released a press statement regarding the transportation system business, which was well known for GARRETT-branded goods and services. A finding of opportunistic bad faith can support a finding of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Arizona Board of Regents, for and on behalf of Arizona State University v. Weiping Zheng, FA1504001613780 (Forum May 28, 2015) (finding that the respondent had acted in opportunistic bad faith according to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii), when it registered the disputed domain name just one week after the complainant filed applications to register the SUB DEVIL LIFE mark, and just days after those applications became public through the USPTO’s website). Complainant points to its website to evidence this assertion, however the Panel finds the press statement Complainant relies on for its opportunistic argument. See Compl. Annex C. As such, as the Panel agrees with Complainant’s assertion, then the Panel finds that Respondent opportunistically registered the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Further, Complainant argues that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the GARRETT mark at the time of registering the <garrett-motion.com> domain name. Actual knowledge of a complainant's rights in a mark prior to registering a confusingly similar domain name can evince bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See iFinex Inc. v. xu shuaiwei, FA 1760249 (Forum Jan. 1, 2018) (“Respondent’s prior knowledge is evident from the notoriety of Complainant’s BITFINEX trademark as well as from Respondent’s use of its trademark laden domain name to direct internet traffic to a website which is a direct competitor of Complainant”). Complainant contends that Respondent’s knowledge can be inferred given Complainant’s longstanding use of the mark and the fame associated with it. The Panel infers, due to the fame of Complainant's mark and the registration timing of the disputed domain name, i.e., less than one month after Honeywell released a press statement regarding the transportation system business, infers that Respondent did have actual knowledge of Complainant’s mark, demonstrating bad faith registration under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <garrett-motion.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Ho Hyun Nahm, Esq., Panelist
Dated: April 15, 2019
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page