Brooks Sports, Inc. v. Dieter Maier
Claim Number: FA2008001907703
Complainant is Brooks Sports, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Mayura I. Noordyke of Cozen O’Connor, United States. Respondent is Dieter Maier (“Respondent”), Germany.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <brookssaleaustralia.com>, registered with MAT BAO CORPORATION.
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.
Richard Hill as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on August 7, 2020; the Forum received payment on August 7, 2020.
On August 15, 2020, MAT BAO CORPORATION confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <brookssaleaustralia.com> domain name is registered with MAT BAO CORPORATION and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. MAT BAO CORPORATION has verified that Respondent is bound by the MAT BAO CORPORATION 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 August 20, 2020, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 9, 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@brookssaleaustralia.com. Also on August 20, 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 September 14, 2020, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Richard Hill 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 states that it was founded in 1914 by John Brooks Goldenberg. Through over 100 years of use of the BROOKS trademark, Complainant is known as a world-leader in athletic clothing and footwear, including high-performance running shoes. Complainant has rights in the BROOKS mark based upon registration in the United States in 1981.
Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its BROOKS mark because it wholly incorporates the mark, merely adding the generic term “sale,” the geographic term “Australia,” and the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”). Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
According to Complainant, Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant’s BROOKS mark and is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Additionally, Respondent doesn’t use the disputed domain for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, the resolving website displays Complainant’s mark and logo and purports to offer unauthorized goods of Complainant at discount rates. In addition, numerous aspects of the resolving website indicate that it is illegitimate and fraudulent; for example, the “Shipping & Returns” link at the bottom of the home page leads to a webpage that that repeatedly refers to “body piercing” products, which are totally unrelated to the products offered for sale on the resolving website. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent attempts to attract Internet users to its websites for commercial gain by offering competing products under Complainant’s mark. Additionally, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the BROOKS mark. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant has registered trademarks for the mark BROOKS and uses it to market athletic clothing and footwear. The mark was registered in 1981.
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark.
The disputed domain name was registered in 2020.
The resolving website offers unauthorized versions of Complainant’s products; it displays Complainant’s mark and logo.
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 disputed domain name wholly incorporates Complainant’s mark, merely adding the generic term “sale,” the geographic term “Australia,” and the “.com” gTLD. Addition of generic and/or descriptive terms and a gTLD does not negate confusing similarity between a domain name and a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See MTD Products Inc v J Randall Shank, FA 1783050 (Forum June 27, 2018) (“The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark as it wholly incorporates the CUB CADET mark before appending the generic terms ‘genuine’ and ‘parts’ as well as the ‘.com’ gTLD.”); see also Doosan Corporation v. philippe champain, FA 1636675 (Forum Oct. 13, 2015) (finding that geographic designations or terms descriptive of a complainant’s business operations do not remove a domain name from the realm of confusing similarity.). Thus, the Panel finds that the <brookssaleaustralia.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s BROOKS mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant’s BROOKS mark and is not commonly known by the disputed domain name: when no response is submitted, WHOIS information can be used to show that a respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See H-D U.S.A., LLC, v. ilyas Aslan / uok / Domain Admin ContactID 5645550 / FBS INC / Whoisprotection biz, FA 1785313 (Forum June 25, 2018) (“The publicly available WHOIS information identifies Respondent as ‘Ilyas Aslan’ and so there is no prima facie evidence that Respondent might be commonly known by either of the [<harleybot.bid> and <harleybot.com>] domain names.”). Here, the WHOIS information of record lists “Dieter Maier” as the registrant of the domain name. Thus, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
The resolving website displays Complainant’s mark and logo and purports to offer unauthorized versions of Complainant’s products at a discount. Use of a disputed domain name to offer products that compete with a complainant’s business is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) & (iii). See Alcon, Inc. v. ARanked, FA 1306493 (Forum Mar. 18, 2010) (“The Panel finds that capitalizing on the well-known marks of Complainant by attracting internet users to its disputed domain names where Respondent sells competing products of Complainant is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”); see also HUGO BOSS Trademark Management GmbH & Co., KG; and HUGO BOSS AG v. lupe hag / Lupe Haag, Case No. FA1801001768931 (Forum Mar. 1, 2018) (finding that the respondent lacked rights or legitimate interests in or to the disputed domain name where the respondent had no permission or license to register the disputed domain name, was not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and was not making a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the domain name because the respondent was not an authorized reseller of the complainant’s goods and was offering for sale counterfeit goods); see also Fossil Group, Inc. v. wuwuima wu FA 1544486 (Forum Mar. 21, 2014) (finding the use of the Fossil mark and images of what appear to be genuine Fossil products including watches, wallets and purses established that Respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name to make a a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). And the Panel finds that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Respondent (who did not reply to Complainant’s contentions) has not presented any plausible explanation for its use of Complainant’s mark. In accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel shall draw such inferences from Respondent’s failure to reply as it considers appropriate. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent did not have a legitimate use in mind when registering the disputed domain name.
Indeed, as already noted, Respondent uses the disputed domain name to pass off as Complainant in order to compete with Complainant’s business. Use of a domain name to create a false impression of affiliation with a complainant in order to compete with and disrupt the complainant’s business is behavior indicative of bad faith registration and use per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Crocs, Inc. v. jing dian, Case No. FA1410001587214 (Forum Dec. 12, 2014) (finding bad faith where the respondent used the disputed domain name to display the complainant’s marks to sell unauthorized goods); see also Swarovski Aktiengesellschaft v. ailong c ailong xiong, Case No. FA1407001571172 (Forum Sept. 5, 2014) (finding bad faith where respondent used the disputed domain name in connection with a website purportedly offering unauthorized goods of Complainant and stating that the respondent’s bad faith was “apparent in that [r]espondent is profiting from the likelihood Internet users will mistakenly believe the goods sold through the domain name’s website are legitimate…”); see also Am. Int’l Group, Inc. v. Busby, FA 156251 (Forum May 30, 2003) (finding that the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith where the respondent hosted a website that “duplicated Complainant’s mark and logo, giving every appearance of being associated or affiliated with Complainant’s business . . . to perpetrate a fraud upon individual shareholders who respected the goodwill surrounding the AIG mark”); see also Hunter Fan Co. v. MSS, FA 98067 (Forum Aug. 23, 2001) (finding bad faith where the respondent used the disputed domain name to sell the complainant’s products without permission and mislead Internet users by implying that the respondent was affiliated with the complainant). The Panel therefore finds that Respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
Further, Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s mark: the resolving website displays Complainant’s mark and logo, and unauthorized versions of Complainant’s products. While constructive notice is insufficient to demonstrate bad faith, actual knowledge of a complainant’s rights in a mark prior to registration may be evidence of bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Custom Modular Direct LLC v. Custom Modular Homes Inc., FA 1140580 (Forum Apr. 8, 2008) (“There is no place for constructive notice under the Policy.”); see also Orbitz Worldwide, LLC v. Domain Librarian, FA 1535826 (Forum Feb. 6, 2014) (“The Panel notes that although the UDRP does not recognize ‘constructive notice’ as sufficient grounds for finding Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) bad faith, the Panel here finds actual knowledge through the name used for the domain and the use made of it.”); 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). The Panel finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the mark prior to Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name and that this constitutes bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <brookssaleaustralia.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Richard Hill, Panelist
Dated: September 15, 2020
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page