Menard, Inc. v. Marketing Total S.A.
Claim Number: FA0705000982191
Complainant is Menard, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Ernest
W. Grumble, of Merchant & Gould P.C., 3200 IDS
Center,
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN
NAME
The domain name at issue is <menardz.com>, registered with Domaindoorman, 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.
The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.) as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on May 11, 2007; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on May 14, 2007.
On May 11, 2007, Domaindoorman, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <menardz.com> domain name is registered with Domaindoorman, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Domaindoorman, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Domaindoorman, LLC registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy").
On May 17, 2007, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of June 6, 2007 by which Respondent could file a response to the Complaint, was transmitted to Respondent via e-mail, post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts, and to postmaster@menardz.com by e-mail.
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On June 11, 2007, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed the Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.) as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the National Arbitration 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." Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the National Arbitration 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 makes the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s <menardz.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s MENARDS mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <menardz.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <menardz.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Menard, Inc., is a leading supplier of home improvement and hardware products and services. In conjunction with the provision of these goods and services, Complainant has registered a number of trade and service marks with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”), including the MENARDS mark (Reg. No. 2,078,549 issued July 15, 1997).
Respondent registered the <menardz.com> domain name on March 20, 2007. The disputed domain name resolves to a website featuring a search engine directory that contains links to commercial websites, some of which offer competing products and services.
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."
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(e), 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 (Nat. Arb. 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.”).
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.
Complainant asserts rights in the MENARDS mark through
registration with the USPTO. The Panel
finds that Complainant’s timely registration of the MENARDS mark establishes
rights in the mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Vivendi Universal Games v. XBNetVentures
Inc., FA 198803 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 11, 2003) (“Complainant's
federal trademark registrations establish Complainant's rights in the BLIZZARD
mark.”); see also Innomed Techs., Inc. v. DRP Servs., FA 221171 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 18, 2004) (“Registration
of the NASAL-AIRE mark with the USPTO establishes Complainant's rights in the
mark.”).
Respondent’s <menardz.com> domain name contains a misspelled and phonetically identical version of Complainant’s MENARDS mark, as well as the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.” The Panel finds that a domain name containing a phonetically identical version of a protected mark, as well as a gTLD, is confusingly similar to the mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See VeriSign, Inc. v. VeneSign C.A., D2000-0303 (WIPO June 28, 2000) (finding that the pronunciation and spelling between the domain name <venesign.com> and the complainant’s mark, VERISIGN, are so close that confusion can arise in the mind of the consumer); see also Rollerblade, Inc. v. McCrady, D2000-0429 (WIPO June 25, 2000) (finding that the top level of the domain name such as “.net” or “.com” does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
In instances where Complainant has made a prima facie case in support of its allegations, the burden shifts to Respondent to set forth evidence indicating that it has rights or legitimate interests in accordance with Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See Compagnie Generale des Matieres Nucleaires v. Greenpeace Int’l, D2001-0376 (WIPO May 14, 2001) (“Proving that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name requires the Complainant to prove a negative. For the purposes of this sub paragraph, however, it is sufficient for the Complainant to show a prima facie case and the burden of proof is then shifted on to the shoulders of Respondent. In those circumstances, the common approach is for respondents to seek to bring themselves within one of the examples of paragraph 4(c) or put forward some other reason why they can fairly be said to have a relevant right or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name in question.”); see also ALPITOUR S.p.A. v. Albloushi, FA 888651 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 26, 2007) (finding that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) requires that the complainant must show that the respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the subject domain name and that once the complainant makes this showing, the burden of production shifts to the respondent to rebut the complainant’s allegations).
Respondent’s disputed domain name resolves to a website featuring links to commercial websites, some of which offer products that directly compete with Complainant’s business. Presumably, Respondent receives “click-through” fees for each misdirected Internet user passing through its website. The Panel finds that such use is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See TM Acquisition Corp. v. Sign Guards, FA 132439 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 31, 2002) (finding that the respondent’s diversionary use of the complainant’s marks to send Internet users to a website which displayed a series of links, some of which linked to the complainant’s competitors, was not a bona fide offering of goods or services); see also The Royal Bank of Scot. Group plc v. Demand Domains, FA 714952 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 2, 2006) (finding that the operation of a commercial web directory displaying various links to third-party websites was not a use in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii), as the respondent presumably earned “click-through” fees for each consumer it redirected to other websites).
Complainant contends that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. A review of Respondent’s WHOIS information reveals that the registrant of the <menardz.com> domain name is “Marketing Total S.A.” The Panel finds that, in light of a lack of countervailing evidence, Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Gallup, Inc. v. Amish Country Store, FA 96209 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 23, 2001) (finding that the respondent does not have rights in a domain name when the respondent is not known by the mark); see also G.D. Searle & Co. v. Cimock, FA 126829 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 13, 2003) (“Due to the fame of Complainant’s mark there must be strong evidence that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name in order to find that Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). However, there is no evidence on record, and Respondent has not come forward with any proof to establish that it is commonly known as CELEBREXRX or <celebrexrx.com>.”).
Respondent’s disputed domain name attempts to capitalize on typographical mistakes made by unsuspecting Internet users. Respondent’s disputed domain name contains a misspelling of Complainant’s mark that varies only by one letter from the protected mark. The practice of attempting to profit off of registering confusingly similar domain names that slightly differ from a protected mark is commonly referred to as “typosquatting.” Respondent’s practice evinces a lack of rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See Black & Decker Corp. v. Khan, FA 137223 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 3, 2003) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where the respondent used the typosquatted <wwwdewalt.com> domain name to divert Internet users to a search engine webpage, and failed to respond to the complaint); see also Nat’l Ass’n of Prof’l Baseball Leagues, Inc. v. Zuccarini, D2002-1011 (WIPO Jan. 21, 2003) (“Typosquatting … as a means of redirecting consumers against their will to another site, does not qualify as a bona fide offering of goods or services, whatever may be the goods or services offered at that site.”).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Respondent’s disputed domain name resolves to a search
engine website featuring links to competitors’ websites. The Panel finds that such use constitutes a
disruption of Complainant’s business and evinces registration and use in bad
faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See Tesco Pers. Fin. Ltd. v. Domain Mgmt. Services, FA 877982 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb.
13, 2007) (the panel concluded that the use of a confusingly similar domain
name to attract Internet users to a website containing commercial links to the
websites of the complainant’s competitors represented bad faith registration
and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)); see
also Persohn v. Lim, FA 874447 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 19, 2007) (the panel
also found bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) where
a respondent used the disputed domain name to operate a commercial search
engine with links to the complainant’s competitors. Consequently, Respondent’s registration and
use of the disputed domain name constituted bad faith according to Policy ¶
4(b)(iii)).
Presumably, Respondent benefits financially from its diversionary use of the disputed domain name. Further, unsuspecting Internet users are likely to become confused as to the source and affiliation of the products and services offered on the resulting website. The Panel finds that Respondent’s use amounts to an attaction for commercial gain and suggests registration and use in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Allianz of Am. Corp. v. Bond, FA 680624 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 2, 2006) (finding bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the respondent was diverting Internet users searching for the complainant to its own website and likely profiting from click-through fees); see also BPI Comm’cns, Inc. v. Boogie TV LLC, FA 105755 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 30, 2002) (“Complainants are in the music and entertainment business. The links associated with <billboard.tv> and <boogie.tv> appear to be in competition for the same Internet users, which Complainants are trying to attract with the <billboard.com> web site. There is clearly a likelihood of confusion between <billboard.tv> and BILLBOARD as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the web site or of a product or service on the web site.”).
As referenced above, Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name registration suggests typosquatting. The Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the domain name registration evidences bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Nat’l Ass’n of Prof’l Baseball League, Inc. v. Zuccarini, D2002-1011 (WIPO Jan. 21, 2003) (“Typosquatting … is the intentional misspelling of words with [the] intent to intercept and siphon off traffic from its intended destination, by preying on Internauts who make common typing errors. Typosquatting is inherently parasitic and of itself evidence of bad faith.”); see also Canadian Tire Corp. v. domain adm’r no.valid.email@worldnic.net 1111111111, D2003-0232 (WIPO May 22, 2003) (finding the respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith because the respondent “created ‘a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s web site or location’. . . through Respondent’s persistent practice of ‘typosquatting’”).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)
has been satisfied.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <menardz.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.), Panelist
Dated: June 18, 2007
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum