UMAREX GmbH & Co. KG v. Identity Protection Service / Identity Protect Limited
Claim Number: FA1812001820455
Complainant is UMAREX GmbH & Co. KG (“Complainant”), represented by Lara Elder of Carpmaels & Ransford LLP, United Kingdom. Respondent is Identity Protection Service / Identity Protect Limited (“Respondent”), United Kingdom.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <umarex.uk.com>, registered with 123-Reg Limited.
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.
Debrett G. Lyons as Panelist.
Complainant participated in the mandatory CentralNic Mediation and the mediation process was concluded/terminated.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on December 11, 2018; the Forum received payment on December 13, 2018.
On December 12, 2018, 123-Reg Limited confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <umarex.uk.com> domain name is registered with 123-Reg Limited and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. 123-Reg Limited has verified that Respondent is bound by the 123-Reg Limited registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with the CentralNic Dispute Resolution Policy (the “CDRP Policy”).
On December 18, 2018, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of January 7, 2019 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@umarex.uk.com. Also on December 18, 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 January 9, 2019, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Debrett G. Lyons 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 to the CDRP 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.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant asserts trademark rights in UMAREX. Complainant holds a national registration for that trademark. Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark.
Complainant alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name;
Complainant alleges that Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
The factual findings pertinent to the decision in this case are that:
1. Complainant sells replica weapons (airsoft gun pistols and rifles) and their parts and accessories by reference to the trademark UMAREX (the “Trademark”);
2. Complainant owns, inter alia, European Union Intellectual Property Office (“EUIPO”) Trademark Reg. No. 001115740, registered Sep. 12, 2000 for the Trademark;
3. The disputed domain name was registered on February 9, 2018 and resolves to a website selling adult-oriented toys and having links to other products unrelated to those sold by either party.
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.”
The Complaint discloses that other legal proceedings are in train concerning a UK company name which includes the Trademark. It is implied but not proven that the underlying owner of the disputed domain name is a person who owns or controls that UK company.
The Complaint is less concerned with the Policy than it is with proof of dealings between Complainant and others who might have a connection with the disputed domain name. In other circumstances the Panel might find that the dispute was outside the scope of the Policy (see, for example, the Panel’s decision in Luvilon Indus. NV v. Top Serve Tennis Pty Ltd., DAU2005-0004 (WIPO Sept. 6, 2005)) but here the Panel has come to the conclusion that the Policy can be readily applied.
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.
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires a two-fold enquiry—a threshold investigation into whether a complainant has rights in a trademark, followed by an assessment of whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that trademark.
It is well established by decisions under this Policy that a trademark registered with a national authority is evidence of trademark rights (see, for example, Mothers Against Drunk Driving v. phix, FA 174052 (Forum Sept. 25, 2003)). Complainant therefore has rights since it provides proof of its registration with the EUIPO, a national trademark authority.
For the purposes of comparison of the disputed domain name with the trademark the gTLD, “.com”, can be disregarded, as can the two-letter country code “UK” for the United Kingdom, neither of which has value in distinguishing the domain name from the trademark. The Trademark is an apparently invented word having no obvious meaning. As such it is highly distinctive. The presentation of the disputed domain name, comprising the Trademark followed by “.uk.com”, only increases the likelihood that internet users would think that the disputed domain name directs to Complainant’s official UK website. The Panel finds the domain name confusingly similar to the trademark (see, for example, Am. Int’l Group, Inc. v. Domain Admin. Ltd., FA 1106369 (Forum Dec. 31, 2007) finding that “a generic top-level domain, such as ‘.com,’ ‘.net,’ ‘.biz,’ or ‘.org,’ is required in domain names”; see also Avaya Inc. v. Evelyn Dayda / Avaya Unlimited Sources LLC, FA 1611255 (Forum May 4, 2015) finding that as “the ‘usa’ portion of the disputed domain name is a generic geographic term, the internet user will assume that the domain name deals with the activities of Complainant in the USA and that it will lead to a website dealing with that subject. The domain name is therefore confusingly similar to the AVAYA mark and the Panel so finds.”).
Panel therefore finds that Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy states that any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be proved based on its evaluation of all evidence presented, shall demonstrate rights or legitimate interests to a domain name for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy:
(i) before any notice to you of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or
(ii) you (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the domain name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
(iii) you are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trade mark or service mark at issue.
Complainant need only make out a prima facie case that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, after which the onus shifts to Respondent to rebut that case by demonstrating those rights or interests (see, for example, Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000‑0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000)).
The publicly available WhoIs information does not support any finding that the domain name registrant might have a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. There is no evidence that Respondent has any trademark rights. The disputed domain name resolves to a website selling sex aids. There is no obvious connection between the Trademark and those products and no reason for the Panel to think that the Trademark might be ordinarily adopted for use in respect of those products.
The Panel finds that a prima facie case has been made out and so the onus shifts to Respondent (see, for example, Twitter, Inc. v. Kiribati Media / Kiribati 200 Media Limited, FA 1603444 (Forum Mar. 19, 2015) holding that, generally, a disputed domain which hosts adult-oriented material is not making a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use).
In the absence of a Response, Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or interests and so finds that Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
Complainant must prove on the balance of probabilities both that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith and used in bad faith.
Further guidance on that requirement is found in paragraph 4(b) of the Policy, which sets out four circumstances, any one of which is taken to be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith if established.
The four specified circumstances are:
‘(i) circumstances indicating that the respondent has registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the respondent’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
(ii) the respondent has registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
(iii) the respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) by using the domain name, respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, internet users to respondent’s website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on the site or location.’
The Panel finds, as separate matters, registration and use of the domain name in bad faith. In the absence of any other explanation there is no reason to think that Respondent registered a highly distinctive name in good faith. Further, the subsequent use of the domain name to sell sex toys and goods unconnected with those offered by Complainant under the Trademark suggests that it is more likely than not that the domain name was used in bad faith in knowledge of Complainant and its Trademark. The Panel finds registration and use in bad faith.
Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied the third and final element 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 <umarex.uk.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Debrett G. Lyons, Panelist
Dated: January 12, 2019
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page