ZOLL Medical Corporation v. rangsan pisansatienwong
Claim Number: FA1911001870320
Complainant is ZOLL Medical Corporation (“Complainant”), represented by Jeffrey H. Greene of Cooley LLP, New York, United States. Respondent is rangsan pisansatienwong (“Respondent”), Thailand.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <zollthai.com>, which is registered with Register.com, Inc.
The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially, and, to the best of his knowledge, has no conflict of interests in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Terry F. Peppard as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on November 8, 2019; the Forum received payment on November 11, 2019.
On November 08, 2019, Register.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <zollthai.com> domain name is registered with Register.com, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Register.com, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Register.com, 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 November 15, 2019, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of December 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@zollthai.com. Also on November 15, 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 December 10, 2019, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Terry F. Peppard as sole Panelist in this proceeding.
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 a response from Respondent.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant markets medical devices to facilitate emergency medical care.
Complainant holds a registration for the ZOLL trademark, which is on file with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) as Registry No. 1,738,184, registered December 8, 1992, and renewed most recently as of December 4, 2012.
Respondent registered the domain name <zollthai.com> on April 24, 2018.
The domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ZOLL mark.
Respondent has not been commonly known by the domain name.
Respondent is not licensed or otherwise authorized to use Complainant’s ZOLL mark.
Respondent fails to use the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.
Instead, Respondent uses the domain name to pass itself off as Complainant online in order to sell medical devices in competition with the business of Complainant.
Respondent’s use of the domain name is an attempt to profit from the confusion it causes among Internet users as to the possibility of Complainant’s association with the domain name and its resolving website.
Respondent knew of Complainant’s rights in the ZOLL mark when it registered the domain name.
Respondent registered and uses the domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
(1) the domain name registered by Respondent is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights; and
(2) Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(3) the domain name has been registered and is being used by Respondent 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:
i. the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
ii. Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
iii. the domain name has been registered and is being used by Respondent in bad faith.
In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel will, pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules, decide this proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations, and, pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, draw such inferences as it deems appropriate. The Panel is entitled to accept as true all reasonable claims and inferences set out in the Complaint unless the supporting evidence is manifestly contradictory. See, for example, Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Forum July 31, 2000) (finding that a respondent’s failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of a UDRP complaint to be deemed true). But see 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”).
Complainant has rights in the ZOLL trademark sufficient for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) by virtue of its registration of the mark with a national trademark authority, the USPTO. See, for example, DIRECTV, LLC v. The Pearline Group, FA 1818749 (Forum December 30, 2018):
Complainant’s ownership of a USPTO registration for … [its mark] … demonstrate[s] its rights in such mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
This is true without regard to whether Complainant’s rights in its mark arise from registration of the mark in a jurisdiction (here the United States) other than that in which Respondent resides or does business (here Thailand). See, for example, W.W. Grainger, Inc. v. Above.com Domain Privacy, FA 1334458 (Forum August 24, 2010):
[T]he Panel finds that USPTO registration is sufficient to establish these [Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)] rights even when Respondent lives or operates in a different country.
Turning to the central question posed by Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), we conclude from a review of the record that Respondent’s <zollthai.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ZOLL mark. The domain name incorporates the mark in its entirety, merely adding the geographic term “thai” and the generic Top Level Domain (“gTLD”) (.com”). These alterations of the mark, made in forming the domain name, do not save it from the realm of confusing similarity under the standards of the Policy. See, for example, Doosan Corporation v. philippe champain, FA 1636675 (Forum October 13, 2015) (finding that adding a geographic designation to the mark of another in creating a domain name does not remove a domain name from the realm of confusing similarity).
See also Trip Network Inc. v. Alviera, FA 914943 (Forum March 27, 2007) (concluding that affixing a gTLD to a domain name is irrelevant to a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis). This is because every domain name requires a gTLD or other TLD.
Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must make out a prima facie showing that Respondent lacks rights to and legitimate interests in the contested <zollthai.com> domain name, whereupon the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have such rights or interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum August 18, 2006) (finding that a UDRP complainant must make a prima facie case that a respondent lacks rights to or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name under UDRP ¶ 4(a)(ii) before the burden shifts to that respondent to show that it does have such rights or interests). See also AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Forum September 25, 2006):
Complainant must … 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, … the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain names.
Complainant has made a sufficient prima facie showing under this head of the Policy. Respondent’s failure to respond to the Complaint therefore permits us to infer that Respondent does not have rights to or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. See Desotec N.V. v. Jacobi Carbons AB, D2000-1398 (WIPO December 21, 2000) (finding that a respondent’s failure to respond to a UDRP complaint allows a presumption that a complainant’s allegations are true unless they are clearly contradicted by the evidence). Nonetheless, we will examine the record before us, in light of the several considerations set out in Policy ¶ 4(c) (i)-(iii), to determine whether there is in it any basis for concluding that Respondent has rights to or legitimate interests in the contested domain name that are cognizable under the Policy.
We begin by noting that Complainant contends, and Respondent does not deny, that Respondent has not been commonly known by the <zollthai.com> domain name, and that Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use the ZOLL mark. Moreover, the pertinent WHOIS information identifies the registrant of the domain name only as “rangsan pisansatienwong,” which does not resemble the domain name. On this record, we conclude that Respondent has not been commonly known by the disputed domain name so as to have acquired rights to or legitimate interests in it within the ambit of Policy ¶4(c)(ii). See, for example, Google LLC v. Bhawana Chandel / Admission Virus, FA 1799694 (Forum September 4, 2018) (concluding that a respondent was not commonly known by a disputed domain name incorporating the GOOGLE mark where the relevant WHOIS record identified that respondent as “Bhawana Chandel,” and nothing in the record showed that that respondent was authorized to use a UDRP Complainant’s mark in any manner). See also Navistar International Corporation v. N Rahmany, FA 620789 (Forum June 8, 2015) (finding, under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), that a respondent was not commonly known by a disputed domain name where a UDRP complainant had not authorized that respondent to incorporate its mark in a domain name).
We next observe that asserts, without objection from Respondent, that
Respondent employs the <zollthai.com> domain name to pass itself off as Complainant online in order to sell medical devices in competition with the business of Complainant. This employment is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services by means of the domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of it under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) such as would confirm in Respondent rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name as provided in those subsections of the Policy. See, for example,
General Motors LLC v. MIKE LEE, FA 1659965 (Forum March 10, 2016), finding that:
[U]se of a domain to sell products and/or services that compete directly with a [UDRP] 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).
The Panel therefore finds that Complainant has satisfied the proof requirements of Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
We are persuaded by the evidence that Respondent’s use of the challenged <zollthai.com> domain name, as alleged in the Complaint, disrupts Complainant’s business. Under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii), this stands as proof of Respondent’s bad faith in registering and using the domain name. See LoanDepot.com, LLC v. Kaolee (Kay) Vang-Thao, FA1762308 (Forum January 9, 2018) (finding that a respondent’s use of a disputed domain name to offer loan services competing with the business of a UDRP complainant disrupted that complainant’s business within the ambit of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).
We are also convinced by the evidence that Respondent’s registration and use of the <zollthai.com> domain name, which we have found to be confusingly similar to Complainant’s ZOLL trademark, is an attempt by Respondent to profit from the confusion thus caused among Internet users as to the possibility of Complainant’s association with the domain name. Under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv), this, too, demonstrates Respondent’s bad faith in registering and using the domain name. See, for example, Citadel LLC v. Joel ober/ Radius Group, FA1409001579141 (Forum Oct. 15, 2014):
Here, the Panel finds evidence of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) bad faith as Respondent has used the confusingly similar domain name to promote its own financial management and consulting services in competition with Complainant.
Finally, under this head of the Policy, it is plain from the record that Respondent knew of Complainant and its rights in the ZOLL mark when it registered the <zollthai.com> domain name. This further illustrates Respondent’s bad faith in registering it. See iFinex Inc. v. xu shuaiwei, FA 1760249 (Forum January 1, 2018):
Respondent’s prior knowledge is evident from … Respondent’s use of its trademark laden domain name to direct internet traffic to a website which is a direct competitor of Complainant.
The Panel thus finds that Complainant has met its obligations of proof under
Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Complainant having established all three elements required to be proven under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that the relief requested must be, and it is hereby, GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <zollthai.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED forthwith from Respondent to Complainant.
Terry F. Peppard, Panelist
Dated: December 11, 2019
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page