Mead Johnson & Company, LLC v. Elite Domains
Claim Number: FA1408001575570
Complainant is Mead Johnson & Company, LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Ryan D. Levy of Waddey & Patterson, P.C., Tennessee, USA. Respondent is Elite Domains (“Respondent”), Illinois, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <enfamilcoupons2013.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 conflict of interests in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Terry F. Peppard as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electron-ically on August 18, 2014; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on August 18, 2014.
On August 19, 2014, GODADDY.COM, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <enfamilcoupons2013.com> domain name is regis-tered with GODADDY.COM, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. 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 21, 2014, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 10, 2014 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all enti-ties and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@enfamilcoupons2013.com. Also on August 21, 2014, 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 which is compliant with the requirements of the Policy and its associated Rules, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On September 16, 2014, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed
Terry F. Peppard as sole Panelist in this proceeding.
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" through submission of Electronic and Written Not-ices, 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 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
Complainant owns the ENFAMIL trademark through its registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Registry No. 2,719,478, registered May 27, 2003).
Complainant uses the ENFAMIL mark in connection with its marketing of pro-ducts associated with infant and children’s nutrition, in which it has been a global leader for more than 50 years and has invested substantially.
Respondent registered the <enfamilcoupons2013.com> domain name on or about March 6, 2012.
The domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ENFAMIL trademark.
Respondent has not been commonly known by the <enfamilcoupons2013.com> domain name.
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use the ENFAMIL trademark, or any of Complainant’s other trademarks, in the domain name at issue, or for any other purpose.
Respondent does not provide any bona fide offering of goods or services, or make a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name.
Respondent uses the disputed domain name primarily as means of collecting pay-per-click revenue derived when confused Internet users visit Respondent’s websites and click on any of the many links and ads featured there.
The disputed domain name features links to web pages operated in direct competition with the business of Complainant.
Respondent lacks rights to or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Respondent knew of Complainant and its rights in the ENFAMIL mark when it registered the contested domain name.
Respondent both registered and uses the contested domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent has failed to submit a Response in this proceeding which is com-pliant with the requirement so the Policy and its associated Rules. However, in an e-mail message addressed to the National Arbitration Forum, Respondent has declared: “[P]lease transfer the domain to the Complainant asap….”
DISCUSSION
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that, in the ordinary course, Complainant must prove each of the following to obtain from a Panel an order that a domain name be transferred:
i. the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights;
ii. Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in respect of
the domain name; and
iii. the domain name has been registered and is being used by Respondent in bad faith.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”) instructs this Panel to “decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accord-ance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.”
Further, Policy ¶ 3(a) permits the transfer of a domain name registration upon the written instructions of the parties to a UDRP proceeding without the need for otherwise required findings and conclusions (see Malev Hungarian Airlines, Ltd. v. Vertical Axis Inc., FA 212653 (Nat. Ar. Forum Jan. 13, 2004); see also Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Morales, FA 475191 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 24, 2005).
DECISION
Respondent’s Response does not contest the material allegations of the Com-plaint, and, in particular, it does not contest Complainant’s request, made in the Complaint, that the disputed domain name be transferred to Complainant. Rather Respondent has explicitly declared its wish that the <enfamilcoupons2013.com> domain name be transferred to Complainant as soon as possible. Thus the parties have effectively agreed in writing to a transfer of the subject domain name from Respondent to Complainant without the need for further proceedings.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <enfamilcoupons2013.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED forthwith from Respondent to Complainant.
Terry F. Peppard, Panelist
Dated: September 18, 2014
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page