Ashley Furniture Industries, Inc. v. TECH DOMAIN SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED
Claim Number: FA1505001621022
Complainant is Ashley Furniture Industries, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Terrence J. Madden of Kostner, Koslo & Brovold LLC, Wisconsin, USA. Respondent is TECH DOMAIN SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED (“Respondent”), India.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <aashleyfurniture.com> ('the Domain Name'), registered with Tirupati Domains and Hosting Private Limited.
The undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his or her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
<<Dawn Osborne of Palmer Biggs Legal>> as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on May 22, 2015; the Forum received payment on May 26, 2015.
On May 28, 2015, Tirupati Domains and Hosting Private Limited confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <aashleyfurniture.com> domain name is registered with Tirupati Domains and Hosting Private Limited and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Tirupati Domains and Hosting Private Limited has verified that Respondent is bound by the Tirupati Domains and Hosting Private Limited 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 June 1, 2015, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of June 22, 2015 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@aashleyfurniture.com. Also on June 1, 2015, 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 26 June, 2015, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Dawn Osborne of Palmer Biggs Legal 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
The Complainant's submissions can be summarised as follows:
The Complainant is the owner of the trade marks ASHLEY, A ASHLEY FURNITURE & Design and A ASHLEY FURNITURE INDUSTRIES & design for furniture or furniture related services in the USA. The marks have been in continuous use on furniture in the USA since at least 1946 in the case of the ASHLEY word mark, at least 2003 in the case of the A ASHLEY FURITURE & design mark and at least 1984 for the ASHLEY FURNITURE INDUSTRIES & design mark.
The Domain Name was registered in 2005. It is confusingly similar to the Complainant's registered trade marks cited above. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the Domain Name. The Respondent does not appear to be commonly known by the Domain Name. The Complainant has not authorised the Respondent to use the Complainant's registered marks.
The web site attached to the Domain Name offers links to other websites offering products offered by competitors of the Complainant, such as Wayfair and Sears. Presumably the Respondent receives compensation for allowing this.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
The Complainant is the owner of the trade marks ASHLEY, A ASHLEY FURNITURE & Design and A ASHLEY FURNITURE INDUSTRIES & design for furniture or furniture related services in the USA. The marks have been in use on furniture in the USA since 1946 in the case of the ASHLEY word mark, 1984 in the case of the A ASHLEY FURNITURE INDUSTRIES & design mark and 2001 is recorded as first use in commerce for the ASHLEY FURNITURE INDUSTRIES & design trade mark registration.
The Domain Name was registered in 2005. The web site attached to the Domain Name offers links to other websites offering products offered by competitors of the Complainant, such as Wayfair and Sears.
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(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.”).
The Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's ASHLEY mark. It includes this mark of the Complainant's in full, save for an additional prefix 'a' and the generic word 'furniture' reflecting the Complainant’s business. Previous panels have held that incorporating a misspelled version of a Complainant's mark is incapable of overcoming confusing similarity. See Valpak Direct Mktg. Sys. Inc. v Manile Indus. Inc, D2006-0714 (WIPO Aug. 17. 2006).
The Domain Name is also confusingly similar to the Complainant's logo marks with the word components A ASHLEY FURNITURE and A ASHLEY FURNITURE INDUSTRIES, incorporating the distinctive part of these marks ‘A ASHLEY’ in full and the generic word ‘furniture’ reflecting the Complainant’s business.
Previous panels have held that featuring a generic word may increase the likelihood of confusion where the chosen term alludes to the Complainant's business. See Chanel Inc. v Cologne Zone, D2000-1809 (WIPO Feb. 22, 2001)(where it was held that the addition of the generic term 'perfumes' was not a distinguishing feature, and in this case increased the likelihood of confusion because it related to the Complainant’s business)
The gTLD .com does not serve to distinguish the Domain Name from the Complainant's marks. See Red Hat Inc v Haecke FA 726010 (Nat Arb Forum July 24, 2006) and OL Inc. v Morgan, FA 1349260 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov 4, 2010)
Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar for the purposes of the Policy with a mark in which the Complainant has rights.
As such the Panel holds that Paragraph 4 (a) (i) of the Policy has been satisfied.
Complainant maintains that the Respondent is not authorised to use or commonly known by the Domain Name. The Complainant contends that the site is set up for commercial benefit to compete with the Complainant using the latter's intellectual property rights to make a profit by pointing to third party links competing with the complainant's services. See ALPITOUR SpA v Albloushi FA 888651 (Nat. Arb Forum. Feb 26, 2007) (rejecting the Respondent's contentions of rights and legitimate interests because the respondent was merely using the domain name to operate a web site containing links to various competing commercial web sites which the panel did not find to be bona fide use in relation to goods and service under the Policy.)
As such the Panellists find that the Respondent does not have rights or a legitimate interest in the Domain Name and that the Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy.
Complainant also alleges that the Respondent's use of the site is commercial and the Respondent is using it to make profit from linking to third party web sites that compete with the Complainant in a confusing manner. The Panel holds that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain Internet users to its website by creating likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trade marks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the links on its web site. See AltaVista Co. v Krotov, D2000-1091 (WIPO Oct 25, 2000)(Finding bad faith under Policy 4 (b)(iv) where the respondent's domain name resolved to a web site that offered links to third party web sites that offered services similar to the complainant’s services and merely took advantage of Internet user mistakes).
As such, the Panel holds that the 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.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <aashleyfurniture.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant..
Dated: July, 10, 2015
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page