Tommy John, Inc. v. Carolina Rodrigues / Fundacion Comercio Electronico

Claim Number: FA2004001893572



Complainant is Tommy John, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Stacy J. Grossman of Law Office of Stacy J. Grossman, New York, USA. Respondent is Carolina Rodrigues / Fundacion Comercio Electronico (“Respondent”), Panama.



The domain names at issue are <>, <>, <> and <>, all registered with, 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.


Debrett G. Lyons as Panelist.



Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on April 24, 2020; the Forum received payment on April 24, 2020.


On April 27, 2020,, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <>, <>, <> and <> domain names are registered with, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names., LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the, 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 April 28, 2020, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of May 18, 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,,,  Also on April 28, 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 May 19, 2020, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Debrett G. Lyons 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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.



A.   Complainant

Complainant asserts trademark rights in TOMMY JOHN.  Complainant holds a national registration for that trademark.  Complainant submits that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to its trademark.  


Complainant alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.


Complainant alleges that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain names in bad faith.


B.   Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.



The factual findings pertinent to the decision in this case are that:

1.    Complainant sells clothing, in particular men and women’s underwear, by reference to the trademark TOMMY JOHN;


2.    Complainant owns United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) Reg. No. 4,338,089, registered May 21, 2013, for the trademark, TOMMY JOHN;


3.    the disputed domain names were registered in March and April 2020 and resolve to websites with multiple links to third-party providers of competitive goods; and


4.    there is no relationship between the parties other than prior proceedings under this Policy and Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use its trademark or to register any domain name incorporating the trademark.



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.  


Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires a two-fold enquiry—a threshold investigation into whether a complainant has rights in a trademark, followed by an assessment of whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that trademark.


It is well established by decisions under this Policy that a trademark registered with a national authority is evidence of trademark rights (see, for example, Mothers Against Drunk Driving v. phix, FA 174052 (Forum Sept. 25, 2003)).  Complainant therefore has rights as it provides proof of its registration of the trademark TOMMY JOHN with the USPTO, a national trademark authority.


For the purposes of comparison of the disputed domain names with the trademark the gTLD, “.com”, can be disregarded (see, for example, Am. Int’l Group, Inc. v. Domain Admin. Ltd., FA 1106369 (Forum Dec. 31, 2007)).  The disputed domain names then differ from the trademark by addition of the descriptive terms, “bra” or “bras”, or in one case by a simple and transparent misspelling of the trademark.  The alterations are of no distinctive value in terms of the overall impact of the compared terms.  The Panel  finds the domain names confusingly similar to the trademark (see, for example, The Toronto-Dominion Bank v. George Whitehead, FA 1784412 (Forum June 11, 2018) (“[S]light differences between domain names and registered marks, such as the addition of words that describe the goods or services in connection with the mark and gTLDs, do not distinguish the domain name from the mark incorporated therein per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”); see also Am. Online, Inc. v. David, FA 104980 (Forum Apr. 10, 2002) holding that “The misspelling of a famous mark does not diminish the confusingly similar nature between the marks and the disputed domain names.”).


The Panel therefore finds that Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.


Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy states that any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be proved based on its evaluation of all evidence presented, shall demonstrate rights or legitimate interests to a domain name for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy:


(i) before any notice to you of the dispute, your use 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) you (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the domain name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights;  or


(iii) you are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.


Complainant need only make out a prima facie case that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, after which the onus shifts to Respondent to rebut that case by demonstrating those rights or interests (see, for example, Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000‑0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000)).


The identity of the domain name registrant is masked by a privacy shield but in consequence of these proceedings the underlying registrant was identified as “Carolina Rodrigues / Fundacion Comercio Electronico”, a party known to Complainant from earlier encounters under this Policy (see, for example,  Tommy John, Inc. v. Carolina Rodrigues / Fundacion Comercio Electronico, FA FA2001001878688 (February 6, 2020), and Tommy John, Inc. v. Carolina Rodrigues / Fundacion Comercio Electronico, FA 2001001880644 (February 25, 2020).


There is no suggestion that Respondent might be commonly known by any of the disputed domain names, or that Respondent has any trademark rights.  Complainant states that there is no association between the parties.  The use of the domain names has been described above.  Such use to host hyperlinks to competing websites is not considered a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use under the Policy (see, for example,, Inc. v. Moniker Privacy Services, FA1411001589962 (Forum Jan. 1, 2015) (“The Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the <> name to promote links in competition with Complainant’s travel agency services does not fall within Policy ¶ 4(c)(i)’s bona fide offering of goods or services, nor does it amount to a legitimate noncommercial or fair use described in Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”).  The Panel finds that Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks a right or interest in the disputed domain names. 


The onus shifts to Respondent and in the absence of a Response, the Panel finds that Respondent has not discharged the onus and so finds that Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy.


Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Complainant must prove on the balance of probabilities both that the disputed domain names were registered and used in bad faith.  


Further guidance on that requirement is found in paragraph 4(b) of the Policy, which sets out four circumstances, any one of which is taken to be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith if established. 


The four specified circumstances are:


‘(i) circumstances indicating that the respondent has registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the respondent’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or


(ii) the respondent has registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or


(iii) the respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or


(iv) by using the domain name, respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, internet users to respondent’s website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on the site or location.’


The Panel has already found the disputed domain names to be confusingly similar to the trademark.  There is no apparent reason for Respondent to register the names in good faith since the trademark appears to only refer to Complainant’s business and has no other shown meaning.  Further, Complainant has already been the target of Respondent’s attention in the past where UDRP proceedings have been concluded in Complainant’s favour.  The Panel finds that Respondent targeted Complainant trademark and business at the time of registration.  Furthermore, the use of the domain names is clearly in bad faith.


Accordingly, the Panel finds that the third and final element of the Policy is satisfied.



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


Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the <>, <>, <> and <> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.



Debrett G. Lyons, Panelist

Dated:  May 24, 2020



Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page