Wiluna Holdings, LLC v. Milen Radumilo
Claim Number: FA1808001799736
Complainant is Wiluna Holdings, LLC (“Complainant”), represented by John O’Malley of Volpe and Koenig, P.C., Pennsylvania, USA. Respondent is Milen Radumilo (“Respondent”), Washington, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <ckips4sale.com>, registered with eNom, 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.
Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on August 2, 2018; the Forum received payment on August 2, 2018.
On August 3, 2018, eNom, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <ckips4sale.com> domain name is registered with eNom, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. eNom, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the eNom, 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 8, 2018, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 28, 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@ckips4sale.com. Also on August 8, 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 August 29, 2018, 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 engages in the business of offering adult-oriented materials under the CLIPS4SALE.COM mark, and has offered these services since at least as early as July 2003.
Complainant has rights in the CLIPS4SALE.COM mark through its registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”).
Respondent’s <ckips4sale.com> domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark as it replaces the letter “L” with the letter “K”.
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <ckips4sale.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 uses the domain name to display generic links to third-party business to commercially benefit from pay-per-click fees.
Respondent registered and uses the <ckips4sale.com> domain name in bad faith. Respondent’s use of the domain name disrupts Complainant’s business and merely capitalizes off the goodwill associated with the mark by offering links to generic third-party services. Further, Respondent’s domain name is merely a typosquatted version of Complainant’s CLIPS4SALE.COM mark, as it replaces only one letter.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant has rights in the CLIPS4SALE.COM mark as demonstrated by its registration of such mark with the USPTO.
Complainant’s rights in the CLIPS4SALE.COM mark existed prior to Respondent’s registration of the at-issue domain name.
Respondent uses the <ckips4sale.com> domain name to divert internet traffic to a website offering pay-per-click links to third parties so that Respondent may commercially benefit.
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 USPTO trademark registration for the CLIPS4SALE.COM trademark evidences its rights in such mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(I). See Microsoft Corp. v. Burkes, FA 652743 (Forum Apr. 17, 2006) (“Complainant has established rights in the MICROSOFT mark through registration of the mark with the USPTO.”).
Additionally, the at-issue domain name is a misspelling or mistyping of Complainant’s CLIPS4SALE.COM trademark where Respondent replaces the mark’s first letter “L” with a “K.” Further, there is no doubt that Respondent picked the at-issue domain name precisely because it is easily confused with Complainant trademark which is also the name of Complainant’s <clips4sale.com> website. The slight differences between the <ckips4sale.com> domain name and Complainant’s CLIPS4SALE.COM trademark are insufficient to distinguish Respondent’s domain name from Complainant’s trademark for the purposes of the Policy. Therefore, the Panel finds that pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) Respondent’s <ckips4sale.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s CLIPS4SALE.COM trademark. See Twitch Interactive, Inc. v. Antonio Teggi, FA 1626528 (Forum Aug. 3, 2015) (finding the <twitcch.tv> domain name confusingly similar to the TWITCH TV trademark because the domain name consisted of a common misspelling of the mark by merely adding the letter “c”).
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 failed to respond, Complainant’s prima facie showing acts conclusively.
Respondent lacks both rights and legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant’s trademark in any capacity and, as discussed below, there are no Policy ¶4(c) circumstances from which the Panel might find that Respondent has rights or interests in respect of the at‑issue domain name.
WHOIS information for the at-issue domain name identifies the registrant as “Milen Radumilo” and the record contains no evidence that otherwise tends to prove that Respondent is commonly known by the <ckips4sale.com> domain name. The Panel therefore concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See 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 at-issue domain name to direct internet traffic to a website featuring generic pay-per-click links to third parties such as “Vacation Planner” and “Chicco Viaro Travel System.” Respondent’s use of the at-issue domain name in this manner constitutes neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶4(c)(i) nor a non-commercial or fair use under Policy ¶4(c)(iii). See Materia, Inc. v. Michele Dinoia, FA1507001627209 (Forum Aug. 20, 2015) (“The Panel finds that Respondent is using a confusingly similar domain name to redirect users to a webpage with unrelated hyperlinks, that Respondent has no other rights to the domain name, and finds that Respondent is not making a bona fide offering or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.”).
Given the forgoing, 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 <ckips4sale.com> domain name was registered and used in bad faith. As discussed below without limitation, Policy ¶ 4(b) specific bad faith circumstances as well as other circumstance are present which compel the Panel to conclude that Respondent acted in bad faith regarding the at-issue domain name pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
As mentioned above, Respondent uses the domain name to address a website displaying generic pay-per-click links. Thereby Respondent disrupts Complainant’s business and creates confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, and endorsement of the domain name so that it may commercially benefit. Respondent’s use of the at-issue domain name domain name to disrupt Complainant’s business and trade upon Complainant’s goodwill for commercial gain demonstrates Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the domain name under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) & (iv). See PopSockets LLC v. san mao, FA 1740903 (Forum Aug. 27, 2017) (finding disruption of a complainant’s business which was not directly commercial competitive behavior was nonetheless sufficient to establish bad faith registration and use per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)); see also Dovetail Ventures, LLC v. Klayton Thorpe, FA1506001625786 (Forum Aug. 2, 2015) (holding that the respondent had acted in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv), where it used the disputed domain name to host a variety of hyperlinks, unrelated to the complainant’s business, through which the respondent presumably commercially gained).
Additionally, Respondent’s overt misspelling of Complainant’s trademark in the at-issue domain name shows that Respondent is engaged in typosquatting. Typosquatting is a practice whereby a domain name registrant deliberately introduces typographical errors or misspellings into a trademark and then uses the resulting string in a domain name hoping that internet users will either inadvertently type the malformed string when searching for products or services related to the domain name’s target trademark and/or on viewing the domain name will confuse the domain name with its target trademark. Here, in creating the at-issue domain name Respondent modifies Complainant’s trademark by replacing its first “L” with a “K.” The Panel notes that the “K” key is adjacent to the “L” key on a typical QWERTY keyboard. Predictably, some internet users intending to visit Complainant’s official website will inadvertently type the at-issue domain name and instead be delivered to a website controlled by Respondent where their subsequent link selections may be exploited. Typosquatting, in itself, indicates bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Adorama, Inc. v. Moniker Privacy Services, FA1503001610020 (Forum May 1, 2015) (“Respondent has also engaged in typosquatting, which is additional evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). Respondents who capitalize on common typing errors engage in bad faith registration under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”); see also, Computerized Sec. Sys., Inc. v. Hu, FA 157321 (Forum June 23, 2003) (finding that the respondent engaged in typosquatting, which is evidence of bad faith registration and use under 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 <ckips4sale.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist
Dated: August 30, 2018
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page