Summit Partners L.P. v. David Johnson
Claim Number: FA1812001822611
Complainant is Summit Partners L.P. (“Complainant”), represented by Robert D. Carroll of Goodwin Procter LLP, Massachusetts, USA. Respondent is David Johnson (“Respondent”), Texas, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <summitpartnersinvest.com>, registered with Moniker Online Services 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.
Kenneth L. Port as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on December 26, 2018; the Forum received payment on December 26, 2018.
On December 27, 2018, Moniker Online Services LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <summitpartnersinvest.com> domain name is registered with Moniker Online Services LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Moniker Online Services LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Moniker Online Services 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 January 7, 2019, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of January 28, 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@summitpartnersinvest.com. Also on January 7, 2019, 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 31, 2019, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Kenneth L. Port 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, Summit Partners L.P., provides a range of financial and investment services. Complainant has rights in the SUMMIT PARTNERS mark based upon its registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 4,941,100, registered Apr. 19, 2016). See Compl. Ex. A. Respondent’s <summitpartnersinvest.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark because Respondent includes the SUMMIT PARTNERS mark in the domain name and adds the generic term “invest.”
Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <summitpartnersinvest.com> domain name because Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and is not authorized or permitted to use Complainant’s mark in any fashion. Additionally, Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, Respondent uses the disputed domain name to divert users away from Complainant’s website.
Respondent registered and uses the <summitpartnersinvest.com> domain name in bad faith. Respondent attempts to disrupt Complainant’s business and attract, for commercial gain, users to the disputed domain name’s website where it offers a competing service. Respondent’s registration of a domain name that is clearly associated with a particular trademark holder constitutes opportunistic bad faith. Further, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the SUMMIT PARTNERS mark prior to registering the disputed domain name.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. The disputed domain name was registered on May 28, 2018.
The Panel finds that the dispute domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark; that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in or to the disputed domain name; and that Respondent has engaged in bad faith use and registration of the dispute domain name.
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 the disputed domain, <summitpartnersinvest.com>, name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s valid and subsisting trademark, SUMMIT PARTNERS. Complainant has adequately plead it rights and interests in and to this trademark. Respondent arrives at the disputed domain name by merely appending the generic word “invest” and the gTLD “.com” to the end of Complainant’s precise trademark. This is insufficient to distinguish the disputed domain name from Complainant’s trademark.
As such, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark.
The Panel further finds that Respondent lacks any rights or legitimate interests in or to the disputed domain name. Respondent has no right, permission or license to register the dispute domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Additionally, Respondent apparently fails to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, Respondent uses the disputed domain name to divert users away from Complainant’s website.
As such, the Panel finds that Respondent lacks any rights or legitimate interests in or the disputed domain name.
The Panel also finds that Respondent has engaged in bad faith use and registration of the disputed domain name. Respondent apparently uses the disputed domain to disrupt Complainant’s business and attract users for commercial gain. Use of a disputed domain name to confuse users looking for a complainant and confusing them into visiting a respondent’s website may evince bad faith under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (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 Allianz of Am. Corp. v. Bond, FA 680624 (Forum June 2, 2006) (finding bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the respondent was diverting Internet users searching for the complainant to its own website and likely profiting). Complainant provides screenshots of the disputed domain name’s resolving webpage, which features Complainant’s mark and references Complainant’s business. See Compl. Ex. B. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the <summitpartnersinvest.com> domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and/or (iv).
Further, Complainant asserts that Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name that is confusingly similar to the SUMMIT PARTNERS mark, which is obviously connected with Complainant, indicates Respondent’s bad faith. The Panel finds that it does not have to reach Complainant’s argument about opportunistic bad faith to find for Complainant.
The Panel further finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s prior rights and interest in and to the trademark SUMMIT PARTNERS. Given the notoriety of SUMMIT PARTNERS and a totality of the circumstances, the Panel finds is impossible that Respondent was not fully aware of Complainants rights and interests.
As such, the Panel finds that Respondent has engaged in bad faith use and registration of 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 <summitpartnersinvest.com> domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
Kenneth L. Port, Panelist
Dated: January 31, 2019
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page