DD IP Holder LLC v. G V / Stop2Shop Inc
Claim Number: FA1901001824421
Complainant is DD IP Holder LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Steven M. Levy, Pennsylvania, USA. Respondent is G V / Stop2Shop Inc (“Respondent”), Florida, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <dunkin-donuts.com> (“Domain Name”), registered with Wild West Domains, 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.
Nicholas J.T. Smith as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on January 9, 2019; the Forum received payment on January 15, 2019.
On January 10, 2019, Wild West Domains, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <dunkin-donuts.com> domain name is registered with Wild West Domains, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Wild West Domains, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Wild West Domains, 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 16, 2019, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 5, 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@dunkin-donuts.com. Also on January 16, 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 February 7, 2019, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Nicholas J.T. Smith 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, DD IP Holder LLC, uses their mark DUNKIN DONUTS in connection with the operation of donut and coffee shops and the sale of coffee and related products, including baked goods. Complainant has rights in the DUNKIN DONUTS mark based on registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 748,901, registered Apr. 30, 1963). Respondent’s <dunkin-donuts.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s DUNKIN DONUTS mark, as the Domain Name is identical and merely adds a hyphen and the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.”
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <dunkin-donuts.com> domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name, nor has Complainant authorized Respondent to use the DUNKIN DONUTS mark in any manner. Respondent’s use of the Domain Name does not amount to a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, the website to which the Domain Name resolves to features hyperlinks that divert users to third party websites, some of which offer competing goods, such as coffee.
Respondent registered and is using the <dunkin-donuts.com> domain name in bad faith. Respondent has demonstrated a pattern of bad faith registration as it has a history of adverse UDRP decisions. Respondent also intentionally seeks to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s marks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s website. Specifically, Respondent uses the Domain Name to feature competing hyperlinks and generates pay-per-click revenue. Finally, Respondent had actual notice of Complainant’s rights in the DUNKIN DONUTS mark.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant holds trademark rights for the DUNKIN DONUTS mark. The Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s DUNKIN DONUTS mark. Complainant has established that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the use of the Domain Name and that Respondent registered and has used of the Domain Name in bad faith.
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).
Complainant has rights in the DUNKIN DONUTS mark based upon registration of the mark with the USPTO (e.g. Reg. No. 748,901, registered Apr. 30, 1963). Registration of a mark with the USPTO is sufficient to establish rights in that mark. See Home Depot Product Authority, LLC v. Samy Yosef / Express Transporting, FA 1738124 (Forum July 28, 2017) (finding that registration with the USPTO was sufficient to establish the complainant’s rights in the HOME DEPOT mark).
The Panel finds that the <dunkin-donuts.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the DUNKIN DONUTS mark as it consists of the DUNKIN DONUTS Mark with the addition of a hyphen and the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com”. These changes are insufficient to distinguish the Domain Name from the DUNKIN DONUTS mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See ADP, LLC. v. Ella Magal, FA 1773958 (Forum Aug. 2, 2017) (“Respondent’s <workforce-now.com> domain name appropriates the dominant portion of Complainant’s ADP WORKFORCE NOW mark and adds a hyphen and the gTLD “.com.” These changes do not sufficiently distinguish the disputed domain name from the ADP WORKFORCE NOW mark.”); see also Dell Inc. v. Protection of Private Person / Privacy Protection, FA 1681432 (Forum Aug. 1, 2016) (“A TLD (whether a gTLD, sTLD or ccTLD) is disregarded under a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis because domain name syntax requires TLDs.”).
The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant alleges that Respondent holds no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. In order for Complainant to succeed under this element, it must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the Domain Name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006) and AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Forum Sept. 25, 2006) (“Complainant must first make a prima facie showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names, which burden is light. If Complainant satisfies its burden, then the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain names.”). The Panel holds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case.
Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name as Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name, nor has Complainant authorized Respondent to use the DUNKIN DONUTS mark. Respondent has no relationship, affiliation, connection, endorsement or association with Complainant. WHOIS information can help support a finding that a respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, especially where a privacy service has been engaged. See State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Dale Anderson, FA1504001613011 (Forum May 21, 2015) (concluding that because the WHOIS record lists “Dale Anderson” as the registrant of the disputed domain name, the respondent was not commonly known by the <statefarmforum.com> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)); see also Kohler Co. v. Privacy Service, FA1505001621573 (Forum July 2, 2015) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) where “Privacy Service” was listed as the registrant of the disputed domain name). The WHOIS lists “G V / Stop2Shop Inc” as registrant of record. Coupled with Complainant’s unrebutted assertions as to absence of any affiliation or authorization between the parties, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name in accordance with Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
Complainant’s evidence clearly indicates that the Domain Name resolves to a website displaying pay-per-click links that send users to websites offering products that potentially compete with Complainant’s products. In circumstances where the links have no connection to any descriptive meaning inherent in the Domain Name, the use of a domain name to offer pay-per-click advertisements does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Ashley Furniture Industries, Inc. v. domain admin / private registrations aktien gesellschaft, FA1506001626253 (Forum July 29, 2015) (“Respondent is using the disputed domain name to resolve to a web page containing advertising links to products that compete with those of Complainant. The Panel finds that this does not constitute a bona fide offering or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.”); see also Insomniac Holdings, LLC v. Mark Daniels, FA 1735969 (Forum July 15, 2017) (”Respondent’s use of <edcorlando.xyz> also does not qualify as a bona fide offering… the <edcorlando.xyz> domain name resolves to a site containing pay-per-click hyperlinks and advertisements… Since these kinds of advertisements generate revenue for the holder of a domain name, they cannot be noncommercial; further, they do not qualify as a bona fide offering.”).
The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
The Panel finds on the balance of probabilities that, at the time of registration of the Domain Name, February 17, 2004, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s DUNKIN DONUTS mark. There is no obvious explanation, nor has one been provided, for an entity to register domain name that is a minor variant of the DUNKIN DONUTS mark and re-direct it to a pay-per-click site other than to take advantage of Complainant’s reputation in the DUNKIN DONUTS Mark, a reputation developed over almost 50 years of use at the time of registration. Furthermore the website to which the Domain Name resolves to makes several direct references to Complainant and its products. In the absence of rights or legitimate interests of its own this demonstrates registration in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
The Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the Domain Name in bad faith to create confusion with Complainant’s DUNKIN DONUTS Mark for commercial gain by using the confusingly similar Domain Name to resolve to a website featuring pay-per-click links. Using a confusingly similar domain name to disrupt a complainant’s business and commercially benefit via competing, pay-per-click links constitutes bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and/or (iv). See Google Inc. v. James Lucas / FireStudio / Jameschee / FIRESTUDIO / SEONG YONG, FA 1502001605757 (Forum Apr. 7, 2015) (“This Panel agrees that Respondent’s inclusion of advertisements to likely reap click-through fees is an example of bad faith pursuant Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).”); see also American Council on Education and GED Testing Service LLC v. Anthony Williams, FA 1760954 (Forum Jan. 8, 2018) (“Respondent’s hosting of links to Complainant’s competitors demonstrates bad faith registration and use of the <geddiploma.org> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)”). Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the Domain Name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iv).
The Panel finds 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 <dunkin-donuts.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Nicholas J.T. Smith, Panelist
Dated: February 11, 2019
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page