West Publishing Corporation v. Jan Plachy
Claim Number: FA1710001751832
Complainant is West Publishing Corporation (“Complainant”), represented by Thomas Walsh of MontaguLaw, P.C., USA. Respondent is Jan Plachy (“Respondent”), Canada.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <westreferenceattorneys.com>, registered with DNC Holdings, 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.
Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on October 2, 2017; the Forum received payment on October 2, 2017.
On October 3, 2017, DNC Holdings, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <westreferenceattorneys.com> domain name is registered with DNC Holdings, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. DNC Holdings, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the DNC Holdings, 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 October 3, 2017, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of October 23, 2017 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@westreferenceattorneys.com. Also on October 3, 2017, 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 October 25, 2017, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Paul M. DeCicco 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 contends as follows:
Complainant registered the WEST mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g. Reg. No. 1,226,635, registered Feb. 8, 1983).
Respondent’s <westreferenceattorneys.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark as it appends the generic terms “reference attorneys” as well as the “.com” generic top-level-domain (“gTLD”) to Complainant’s fully incorporated mark.
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <westreferenceattorneys.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 attempts to pass off as Complainant.
Respondent registered and uses the <westreferenceattorneys.com> domain name in bad faith. Respondent disrupts Complainant’s business through the display of content in direct competition with Complainant. Respondent attempts to pass off as Complainant. Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the WEST mark prior to registration.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant has rights in the WEST mark through its registration of such mark with the USPTO.
Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and had not been authorized to use Complainant’s trademarks in any capacity.
Respondent registered the at‑issue domain name after Complainant acquired rights in its relevant trademarks.
Respondent uses the disputed domain name in an attempt to pass itself off as Complainant.
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 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 (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 at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.
Complainant’s ownership of a USPTO registration for WEST demonstrate its rights in such marks for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Humor Rainbow, Inc. v. James Lee, FA 1626154 (Forum Aug. 11, 2015) (stating, “There exists an overwhelming consensus amongst UDRP panels that USPTO registrations are sufficient in demonstrating a complainant’s rights under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) and its vested interests in a mark. . . . Due to Complainant’s attached USPTO registration on the principal register …, the Panel agrees that it has sufficiently demonstrated its rights per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”).
Respondent’s <westreferenceattorneys.com> domain name contains Complainant’s entire WEST trademark followed by generic terms “reference” and “attorneys.” The fact that the added terms are suggestive of Complainant’s legal research oriented business only adds to any confusion resulting from the unauthorized use of Complainant’s trademark within Respondent’s domain name. The domain name concludes with a necessary top level, here “.com”. The attendant differences between the at-issue domain name and Complainant’s trademark are insufficient to distinguish one from the other for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Therefore the Panel concludes that Respondent’s <westreferenceattorneys.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s WEST trademark. See Wiluna Holdings, LLC v. Edna Sherman, FA 1652781 (Forum Jan. 22, 2016) (Finding the addition of a generic term and gTLD is insufficient in distinguishing a disputed domain name from a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).).
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. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006). Since Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant’s trademark in any capacity and as discussed below there is no evidence supporting a finding pursuant to Policy 4(c) that Respondent has rights or interests in the at-issue domain name, Complainant’s prima facie showing acts conclusively.
WHOIS information for the at-issue domain name identifies the domain name’s registrant as “Jan Plachy.” The record before the Panel contains no evidence that might otherwise tend to prove that Respondent is commonly known by the at-issue domain name. The Panel therefore concludes that for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name. See Navistar International Corporation v. N Rahmany, FA1505001620789 (Forum June 8, 2015) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name where the complainant had never authorized the respondent to incorporate its NAVISTAR mark in any domain name registration); see also, Coppertown Drive-Thru Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089 (Forum July 17, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <coppertown.com> domain name where there was no evidence in the record, including the WHOIS information, suggesting that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name).
Furthermore, Respondent uses the <westreferenceattorneys.com> domain name to attempt to pass itself off as Complainant. On webpages addressed by the at-issue domain name Respondent imitates Complainant’s “Legal Solutions Blog” layout and copies other information from Complainant’s website to Respondent’s. Using the confusingly similar at-issue domain name in this manner is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See Am. Int’l Group, Inc. v. Busby, FA 156251 (Forum May 30, 2003) (finding that the respondent attempts to pass itself off as the complainant online, which is blatant unauthorized use of the complainant’s mark and is evidence that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name).
Given the foregoing, Complainant satisfies its initial burden and conclusively demonstrates Respondent’s lack of rights and lack of interests in respect of the at-issue domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Respondent’s domain name was registered and used in bad faith pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
As mentioned above regarding rights and legitimate interests, Respondent uses the confusingly similar at-issue domain name to attempt to pass itself off as Complainant. The trademark laden domain name ultimately addresses a webpage containing competing content. Doing so disrupts Complainant’s business and demonstrates Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the <westreferenceattorneys.com> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). Further, Respondent’s attempts to pass itself off as Complainant by using the confusingly similar domain name and Complainant’s trademarks and trade dress on the <westreferenceattorneys.com> website demonstrate bad faith use of the at-issue domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Monsanto Co. v. Decepticons, FA 101536 (Forum Dec. 18, 2001) (finding that the respondent's use of <monsantos.com> to misrepresent itself as the complainant and to provide misleading information to the public supported a finding of bad faith).
Next, the notoriety of Complainant’s trademark in its sphere of commerce in conjunction with Respondent’s lack of any connection with Complainant or the WEST trademark suggests “opportunistic bad faith.” Respondent’s objective is to employ the at-issue domain name to trick internet users into believing it, and the <westreferenceattorneys.com> website where the domain name resolves, are sponsored by Complainant when they are not. Indeed, Respondent has no affiliation with Complainant but nevertheless opportunistically uses the trademark laden <westreferenceattorneys.com> domain name for its own benefit. See Harrods Ltd. v. Harrod’s Closet, D2001-1027 (WIPO Sept. 28, 2001) (finding that where a mark is so “obviously connected with well-known products,” its very use by someone with no connection to these products can evidence opportunistic bad faith).
Finally, Respondent registered <westreferenceattorneys.com> knowing that Complainant had trademark rights in the WEST mark. Respondent’s prior knowledge is evident from the notoriety of Complainant’s trademark and from Respondent’s use of the domain to impersonate Complainant. It is thus clear that Respondent intentionally registered the at-issue domain name to improperly exploit its trademark value, rather than for some benign reason. Respondent’s prior knowledge of Complainant's trademark further indicates that Respondent registered and used the <westreferenceattorneys.com> domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent had "actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name").
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <westreferenceattorneys.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist
Dated: October 25, 2017
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page