TechSmith Corporation v. MacKenzie Blais
Claim Number: FA1907001852799
Complainant is TechSmith Corporation (“Complainant”), represented by James R. Duby of DUBY LAW FIRM, Michigan, USA. Respondent is MacKenzie Blais (“Respondent”), California, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <techsmithw.com>, registered with Tucows Domains Inc..
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. DeCiccco, as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on July 18, 2019; the Forum received payment on July 18, 2019.
On July 19, 2019, Tucows Domains Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <techsmithw.com> domain name is registered with Tucows Domains Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Tucows Domains Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Tucows Domains Inc. 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 22, 2019, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 12, 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@techsmithw.com. Also on July 22, 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 13, 2019, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Paul M. DeCiccco, 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 conducts business in the computer software industry.
Complainant has rights in the TECHSMITH mark based upon its registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”).
Respondent’s <techsmithw.com> domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s TECHSMITH mark because it wholly incorporates Complainant’s TECHSMITH mark, and merely adds a “w” and the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).
Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the <techsmithw.com> domain name. Respondent is not authorized or licensed to use Complainant’s TECHSMITH mark and there is no evidence to suggest that the Respondent listed in the WHOIS record is commonly known by the disputed domain name. Respondent fails to use the at-issue domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use because Respondent uses the disputed domain name’s resolving webpage to offer competing services.
Respondent registered and uses the <techsmithw.com> domain name in bad faith. Respondent attempts to attract, for commercial gain, users to the disputed domain name where Respondent uses the at-issue domain name’s resolving webpage to offer competing services. Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s TECHSMITH mark prior to registering the disputed domain name. Finally, Respondent failed to respond to Complainant’s cease-and-desist letter.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant has rights in the TECHSMITH trademark through its registration of such mark with the USPTO.
Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and had not been authorized to use Complainant’s trademark in any capacity.
Respondent registered the at‑issue domain name after Complainant acquired rights in the TECHSMITH trademark.
Respondent’s domain name addresses a website that directly competes with Complainant.
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”).
The at-issue domain is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.
Complainant shows that it has a USPTO registration for its TECHSMITH trademark. Such registration is sufficient to demonstrate Complainant’s rights in the TECHSMITH mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). 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).
Respondent’s <techsmithw.com> domain name contains Complainant’s TECHSMITH trademark followed by a “w” and the top-level domain name “.com.” The differences between Respondent’s domain name and Complainant’s trademark are insufficient to distinguish the domain name from the Complainant’s TECHSMITH trademark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent’s <techsmithw.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s TECHSMITH trademark. See Bittrex, Inc. v. Sergey Valerievich Kireev / Kireev, FA 1784651 (Forum June 5, 2018) (holding that the domain name consists of the BITTREX mark and adds “the letters ‘btc’ and the gTLD .com which do not distinguish the Domain Name from Complainant’s mark.”); see also, Bank of America Corporation v. Above.com Domain Privacy, FA 1629452 (Forum Aug. 18, 2015) (finding that the <blankofamerica.com> domain name contains the entire BANK OF AMERICA mark and merely adds the gTLD ‘.com’ and the letter ‘l’ to create a common misspelling of the word ‘bank’)..
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).
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 <techsmithw.com> identifies the domain name’s registrant as “MacKenzie Blais” and the record before the Panel contains no evidence that otherwise tends to prove that Respondent is commonly known by the <techsmithw.com> domain name. The Panel therefore concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by the <techsmithw.com> 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).
Additionally, Respondent uses the <techsmithw.com> domain name to address a website which offers services that complete with services offered by Complainant. Respondent’s use the of the domain name in this manner is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a non-commercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See General Motors LLC v. MIKE LEE, FA 1659965 (Forum Mar. 10, 2016) (finding that “use of a domain to sell products and/or services that compete directly with a complainant’s business does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”); see also, Gumwand Inc. v. jared brading, FA 1794058 (Forum Aug. 6, 2018) (finding that use of a confusingly similar domain name to resolve to a website which purported to sell chewing gum-removal equipment which was either counterfeit versions of Complainant’s goods, or goods which competed directly with Complainant’s chewing gum-removal equipment business, was not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use within Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii)).
Given the forgoing and absent any contrary evidence from Respondent, Complainant satisfies its initial burden and shows Respondent’s lack of rights and legitimate interests in the at-issue domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
The at-issue domain name was registered and was being used in bad faith. As discussed below, bad faith circumstances are present from which the Panel concludes that Respondent acted in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
As mentioned above regarding rights and legitimate interests, Respondent uses the <techsmithw.com> domain name to host a commercial website that competes with Complainant’s services. Using a confusingly similar domain name in this manner is disruptive to Complainant’s business and demonstrates Respondent’s bad faith under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) & (iv). See Fitness International, LLC v. ALISTAIR SWODECK / VICTOR AND MURRAY, FA1506001623644 (Forum July 9, 2015) (“Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to operate a website that purports to offer health club related services such as fitness experts, fitness models, fitness venues, exercise programs, and personal training, all of which are the exact services offered by Complainant. Doing so causes customer confusion, disrupts Complainant’s business, and demonstrates Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).”); see also, Microsoft Corporation v. Story Remix / Inofficial, FA 1734934 (Forum July 10, 2017) (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).
Furthermore, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the TECHSMITH mark when it registered <techsmithw.com> as a domain name. Respondent’s actual knowledge is evident from the notoriety of Complainant’s trademark and from Respondent’s use of the domain name to offer products for sale that directly compete with those offered by Complainant. Registering and using a confusingly similar domain name with knowledge of Complainant’s rights in such domain name shows bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶4(a)(iii). See Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name); see also, Univision Comm'cns Inc. v. Norte, FA 1000079 (Forum Aug. 16, 2007) (rejecting the respondent's contention that it did not register the disputed domain name in bad faith since the panel found that the respondent had knowledge of the complainant's rights in the UNIVISION mark when registering 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 <techsmithw.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Paul M. DeCiccco, Panelist
Dated: August 13, 2019
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page