HomeGoods, Inc. v. Cristina Bialba
Claim Number: FA2007001902791
Complainant is HomeGoods, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Mary Grace Gallagher of Alston & Bird, LLP, Georgia, USA. Respondent is Cristina Bialba ("Respondent"), Philippines.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <homegoodshops.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.
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 July 2, 2020; the Forum received payment on July 2, 2020.
On July 2, 2020, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by email to the Forum that the <homegoodshops.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 July 6, 2020, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 27, 2020 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@homegoodshops.com. Also on July 6, 2020, 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 July 30, 2020, 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 operates more than 700 retail stores throughout the United States featuring a variety of household products. Complainant has used the HOMEGOODS mark in connection with its retail store services since at least 1992 and owns U.S. trademark registrations for HOMEGOODS and various related marks, including a registration for HOMEGOODS in the form of a standard character mark.
Respondent registered the disputed domain name <homegoodshops.com> using a privacy registration service in April 2020 and is using it for a website that features the designation "Home & Goods" on each page and offers household products for sale. (The Panel notes that subsequent to the filing of the Complaint, Respondent’s website appears to have been replaced by a placeholder page consisting of pay-per-click links.) The website is in English; Complainant alleges on this basis that it is targeted at consumers in the United States, and that purchasers of merchandise from the site believe that it comes from Complainant. Complainant states that Respondent is not associated or affiliated with Complainant and is not licensed or permitted to use its HOMEGOODS mark. Complainant asserts that based upon the fame of its mark and the related nature of Respondent's website, Respondent must have known of Complainant's mark and the confusion that would result from Respondent's competing use.
Complainant contends on the above grounds that the disputed domain name <homegoodshops.com> is confusingly similar to its HOMEGOODS mark; 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 set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, § 4.3 (3d ed. 2017), available at http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (dismissing complaint where complainant failed to "produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations").
The disputed domain name <homegoodshops.com> incorporates Complainant's registered HOMEGOODS trademark (omitting the "S"), adding the generic term "shops" and the ".com" top-level domain. These additions do not substantially diminish the similarity between the domain name and Complainant's mark. See, e.g., HomeGoods, Inc. v. Lily Liu / homegoodstore, FA 1896164 (Forum June 9, 2020) (finding <homegoodstore.net> confusingly similar to HOMEGOODS); HomeGoods, Inc. v. Jiahongnetwork / Jiahongnetwork Jiahongnetwork, FA 1893706 (Forum May 22, 2020) (finding <home‑goods.shop> confusingly similar to HOMEGOODS). The Panel considers the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights.
Under the Policy, the Complainant must first make a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and then the burden shifts to the Respondent to come forward with concrete evidence of such rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Productions, Inc. v. Entertainment Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006).
The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's registered mark without authorization, and it is being used for a website that offers for sale products similar to those offered by Complainant. It is not clear to the Panel that Respondent's use actually competes with Complainant or that its website is targeted at consumers in the United States, where Complainant and its retail stores are located. Respondent is located in the Philippines, and the prices on Respondent's website (according to the screenshot provided by Complainant) all appear in Philippine pesos. However, Respondent's failure to participate in this proceeding prevents the Panel from reaching any definitive conclusions regarding the nature or legitimacy of Respondent's activities.
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 is being 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."
Respondent used a privacy registration service to register a domain name that incorporates Complainant's well-known mark, and at least until recently was using it for an online storefront offering products similar to those offered by Complainant in its retail stores. Such conduct is indicative of bad faith registration and use under the Policy. See, e.g., See, e.g., HomeGoods, Inc. v. Lily Liu / homegoodstore, supra (finding bad faith registration and use in similar circumstances); HomeGoods, Inc. v. Jiahongnetwork / Jiahongnetwork Jiahongnetwork, supra (same). The Panel so finds.
Having considered the three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <homegoodshops.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
David E. Sorkin, Panelist
Dated: July 31, 2020
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page