DECISION

 

Alldata, LLC v. Hulmiho Ukolen / Poste restante

Claim Number: FA1907001851590

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Alldata, LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Kathryn K. Van Namen of Butler Snow, LLP, Tennessee, USA.  Respondent is Hulmiho Ukolen / Poste restante (“Respondent”), Finland.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <supportalldata.com>, registered with Gransy, s.r.o..

 

PANEL

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.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on July 11, 2019; the Forum received payment on July 16, 2019.

 

On July 12, 2019, Gransy, s.r.o. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <supportalldata.com> domain name is registered with Gransy, s.r.o. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name.  Gransy, s.r.o. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Gransy, s.r.o. 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 July 18, 2019, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 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@supportalldata.com.  Also on July 18, 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 August 8, 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.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant is a wholly owned subsidiary of Autozone, Inc., and is the leading provider of automotive information and solutions to the professional automotive service industry. Complainant has rights in the ALLDATA mark based on its trademark registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 1,556,655, registered Sep. 19, 1989). See Amend. Compl. Ex. C. Respondent’s <supportalldata.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ALLDATA mark as Respondent incorporates the mark in its entirety along with the generic term  “support” and a “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).

 

Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <supportalldata.com> domain name. Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant’s ALLDATA mark nor commonly known by the disputed domain name. Additionally, Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, Respondent uses the disputed domain name to offer sexually explicit and pornographic material.

 

Respondent registered and uses the <supportalldata.com> domain name in bad faith. Respondent attempted to sell the disputed domain name to Complainant for $625.00. Furthermore, Respondent uses the disputed domain name to feature sexually explicit and pornographic material. Finally, Respondent had knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the ALLDATA mark.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.  The disputed domain name was registered on July 27, 2017.

 

FINDINGS

The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s valid and subsisting 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 disputed domain name.

 

DISCUSSION

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 set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at ¶ 4.3; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (“Because Complainant did not produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations [. . .] the Panel finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint”).

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s valid and subsisting trademark.  Complainant’ has adequately made out its rights and interests in this trademark.  Respondent arrives at the disputed domain name by adding to Complainant’s ALLDATA mark as Respondent incorporates the mark in its entirety along with the generic term “support” and a “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).  This is insufficient to distinguish the disputed domain name from Complainant’s trademark.

 

As such, the Panel finds that that the disputed domain name in confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

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 disputed domain name.  Respondent is also no commonly known by the disputed domain name.  Additionally, Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, Respondent uses the disputed domain name to offer sexually explicit and pornographic material.

 

As such, Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in or to the disputed domain name.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Finally, the Panel finds that Respondent has engaged in bad faith use and registration of the disputed domain name.  Complainant contends that Respondent’s only purpose in registering the <supportalldata.com> domain name was to gain commercially from the sale of the disputed domain name, indicating its registration to sue and gain financially in name in bad faith. A general offer to sell a domain name can be evidence the respondent intended to make such an offer at the time it registered the name, supporting a finding of bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(i). See Citigroup Inc. v. Kevin Goodman, FA1506001623939 (Forum July 11, 2015) (holding that the evidence showed that the respondent registered the disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of transferring it for a profit and demonstrates the respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(i).); see also Pocatello Idaho Auditorium Dist. v. CES Mktg. Group, Inc., FA 103186 (Forum Feb. 21, 2002) ("[w]hat makes an offer to sell a domain [name] bad faith is some accompanying evidence that the domain name was registered because of its value that is in some way dependent on the trademark of another, and then an offer to sell it to the trademark owner or a competitor of the trademark owner"). Complainant contends that given its longstanding trademark registration of the ALLDATA mark, and Respondent’s current use of the domain name to offer to sell the name for $625.00 (see Amend. Compl. Ex. E), it is evident Respondent’s purpose for registering and using the domain name was and is to sell the name for a profit. The Panel finds that Respondent has  registered and used the <supportalldata.com> domain name in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(i).

 

Complainant further contends that Respondent use of the <supportalldata.com> domain name to feature sexually explicit content also demonstrates bad faith. Use of a disputed domain name to feature adult-oriented content may be evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Molson Canada 2005 v. JEAN LUCAS / DOMCHARME GROUP, FA1412001596702 (Forum Feb. 10, 2015) (“Further, Respondent’s diversion of the domain names to adult-oriented sites is registration and use of the disputed domain names in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”). Complainant did not provide any evidence to support this contention; therefore, this contention will be dismissed.

 

Complainant also contends that in light of the fame and notoriety of Complainant's ALLDATA mark, it is inconceivable that Respondent could have registered the disputed domain name without actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the mark. The Panel finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the mark prior to registering the disputed domain name.

 

As such, the Panel finds that Respondent engaged in bad faith use and registration of the disputed domain name.

 

DECISION

Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <supportalldata.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

Kenneth L. Port, Panelist

Dated:  August 10, 2019

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page