Target Brands, Inc. v. Karthik Raja / Seopixlr
Claim Number: FA2003001889720
Complainant is Target Brands, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Steven M. Levy, District of Columbia, United States. Respondent is Karthik Raja / Seopixlr (“Respondent”), India.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <targetehrlogin.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, 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.
Alan L. Limbury, as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on March 25, 2020; the Forum received payment on March 31, 2020.
On March 27, 2020, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <targetehrlogin.com> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, 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 March 31, 2020, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 20, 2020 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@targetehrlogin.com. Also on March 31, 2020, 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 April 24, 2020, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Alan L. Limbury 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
In the field of retail department stores, Complainant has rights in the TARGET mark through its registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”).
Complainant operates a Team Member Services online website facility, often referred to as “eHR", for the use of its employees, who may log in to view their work schedules and pay statements, review their employee benefits, obtain in-house company news, and accomplish other tasks related to Complainant’s human resources function.
Respondent’s <targetehrlogin.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s TARGET mark.
Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the <targetehrlogin.com> domain name as Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name nor did Complainant authorize Respondent to use the mark in any way. Respondent fails to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name. Instead, Respondent attempts to pass off as Complainant and provide services that compete with Complainant.
Respondent registered and uses the <targetehrlogin.com> domain name in bad faith as Respondent attempts to create a likelihood of confusion with Complainant by displaying Complainant’s mark on its website and offering similar services. Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the TARGET mark prior to registration of the domain name.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant has established all the elements entitling it to relief.
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”).
Complainant has shown that it has rights in the TARGET mark through its registration with the USPTO (Reg. No. 845,615, registered March 5, 1968).
Respondent’s <targetehrlogin.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s TARGET mark since it incorporates the mark in its entirety, adding the generic terms “EHR” (likely to be understood as “electronic human resources”) and “LOGIN” along with the inconsequential “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”), which may be disregarded. See the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.8: “Where the relevant trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) would not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element.”
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy sets out three illustrative circumstances as examples which, if established by Respondent, shall demonstrate rights to or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, i.e.
(i) before any notice to Respondent of the dispute, the use by Respondent of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or
(ii) Respondent (as an individual, business or other organization) has been commonly known by the domain name, even if Respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
(iii) Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert customers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.
The Panel finds that, as a result of its use and promotion by Complainant, the TARGET mark is famous in the field of retail department stores. This, coupled with Complainant’s assertions, constitutes a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Accordingly, the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014). The Respondent has made no attempt to do so.
In the circumstances of this case, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
(iv) by using the domain name, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on its website or location.
Respondent’s <targetehrlogin.com> domain name was registered on May 7, 2019. Complainant has provided screenshots of the website to which the domain name resolves that show Complainant’s mark and create the impression that the website is Complainant’s official “eHR” login page.
The Panel notes that the website contains a disclaimer of any relationship to Complainant and states that it is a site purely to educate readers regarding Complainant’s online Target eHR portal. However, the site displays what appear to be monetized links to third party advertisements.
Respondent has not denied Complainant’s assertions that:
“Respondent’s website seeks to give the impression that it is a blog offering information on how to access Complainant’s eHR website. However, this is merely a pretext and the real purpose of Respondent’s site is to derive revenue from the large number of monetized search links and advertisements that appear on the page. Thus, the appearance of a blog is a sham. This is not a “fan” site or other informational offering provided out of Respondent’s passion for the subject matter of retail store gift cards. Rather, Respondent is seeking commercial gain. In fact, to further its pretext, the site intentionally misleads users as to its source by displaying a footer stating “Copyright © TargeteHR 2019” and falsely claiming, with regard to the allegedly informational site, that “This has been done with the knowledge of TARGET”.”
Under these circumstances the Panel finds that Respondent was well aware of Complainant’s famous TARGET mark when registering the domain name and that, by using the domain name, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s website.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
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 <targetehrlogin.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Alan L. Limbury, Panelist
Dated: May 5, 2020
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page