Bridgestone Corporation v. Ramon Acosta / Neumaticos Especiales del Bajio, SA de CV
Claim Number: FA1803001778645
Complainant is Bridgestone Corporation (“Complainant”), represented by Douglas A. Rettew of Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, L.L.P., District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is Ramon Acosta / Neumaticos Especiales del Bajio, SA de CV (“Respondent”), Mexico.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <otrbridgestone.com>, registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com.
The undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on March 23, 2018; the Forum received payment on March 23, 2018.
On March 27, 2018, PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <otrbridgestone.com> domain name is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com 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 March 27, 2018, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 16, 2018 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@otrbridgestone.com. Also on March 27, 2018, 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 April 17, 2018, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Sandra J. Franklin 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
1. Respondent’s <otrbridgestone.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s BRIDGESTONE mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <otrbridgestone.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and uses the <otrbridgestone.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant sells BRIDGESTONE tires for various vehicles including off-the-road (“OTR”) tires. Complainant holds a registration for the BRIDGESTONE mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 1,342,473, registered June 18, 1985).
Respondent registered the <otrbridgestone.com> domain name on November 22, 2016, and uses it to pass itself off as Complainant in furtherance of a phishing scheme.
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 Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the BRIDGESTONE mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through its registration of the mark with the USPTO. 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 at Exhibit 1, the Panel agrees that it has sufficiently demonstrated its rights per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”).
Respondent’s <otrbridgestone.com> domain name incorporates Complainant’s mark and simply adds the acronym “otr” and the gTLD “.com.” Similar changes to a registered mark have failed to distinguish a domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶4(a)(i). See Microsoft Corporation v. Thong Tran Thanh, FA 1653187 (Forum Jan. 21, 2016) (determining that confusing similarity exist where [a disputed domain name] contains Complainant’s entire mark and differs only by the addition of a generic or descriptive phrase and top-level domain, the differences between the domain name and its contained trademark are insufficient to differentiate one from the other for the purposes of the Policy.). The Panel finds that Respondent’s <otrbridgestone.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s BRIDGESTONE mark.
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶4(a)(i).
Once Complainant makes a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)); see also Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) (“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”).
Complainant contends that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <otrbridgestone.com> domain name. Complainant alleges that Respondent is not legitimately affiliated with Complainant, and is not known by the disputed domain name. Complainant has not given Respondent permission to use the BRIDGESTONE mark in any manner. The WHOIS identifies “Ramon Acosta / Neumaticos Especiales del Bajio, SA de CV” as the registrant. The Panel therefore finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the <otrbridgestone.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Braun Corp. v. Loney, FA 699652 (Forum July 7, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain names where the WHOIS information, as well as all other information in the record, gave no indication that the respondent was commonly known by the domain names, and the complainant had not authorized the respondent to register a domain name containing its registered mark); see also 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).
Complainant argues that Respondent does not use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use, as Respondent uses the domain name to pass off as Complainant in furtherance of a fraudulent phishing scheme. Passing off to further a phishing scheme is evidence of a lack of rights and legitimate interests per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii). See Google Inc. v. Pritam Singh / Pandaje Technical Services Pvt Ltd., FA 1660771 (Forum Mar. 17, 2016) (agreeing that respondent has not shown any bona fide offering of goods or services or any legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii) as the respondent used the complainant’s mark and logo on a resolving website containing offers for technical support and password recovery services, and soliciting Internet users’ personal information). Complainant provides a screenshot of the webpage at <otrbridgestone.com>, which contains Complainant’s mark and products, and displays messages in the Spanish language. The Panel finds that this use is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶4(a)(ii).
Complainant argues that Respondent registered and uses the <otrbridgestone.com> domain name in bad faith by disrupting Complainant’s business and creating a likelihood of confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the disputed domain name, for Respondent’s commercial benefit. Using a disputed domain name that disrupts a complainant’s business and trades upon the goodwill of a complainant for commercial gain can is evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) & (iv). See Artistic Pursuit LLC v. calcuttawebdevelopers.com, FA 894477 (Forum Mar. 8, 2007) (finding that the respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name, which displayed a website virtually identical to the complainant’s website, constituted bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)); see also Bittrex, Inc. v. Wuxi Yilian LLC, FA 1760517 (Forum Dec. 27, 2017) (finding bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where “Respondent registered and uses the <lbittrex.com> domain name in bad faith by directing Internet users to a website that mimics Complainant’s own website in order to confuse users into believing that Respondent is Complainant, or is otherwise affiliated or associated with Complainant.”). Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent disrupts Complainant’s business and attempts to commercially benefit off Complainant’s mark in bad faith under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) & (iv).
Complainant also contends that Respondent undoubtedly knew of Complainant’s rights in the BRIDGESTONE mark given the fame of the mark and Respondent’s use of the mark to impersonate Complainant. The Panel agrees and finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s mark, demonstrating bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Univision Comm'cns Inc. v. Norte, FA 1000079 (Forum Aug. 16, 2007) (rejecting the respondent's contention that it did not register the disputed domain name in bad faith since the panel found that the respondent had knowledge of the complainant's rights in the UNIVISION mark when registering the disputed domain name).
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶4(a)(iii).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <otrbridgestone.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist
Dated: April 18, 2018
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page