Duke University v. Thomas Phillips / Millicent Hull
Claim Number: FA2108001960456
Complainant is Duke University (“Complainant”), represented by Susan Freya Olive of Olive & Olive, P.A., North Carolina, USA. Respondent is Thomas Phillips / Millicent Hull (“Respondent”), Florida, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <dukebasketballstore.com>, <dukebasketballshop.com>, <dukebluedevilsshop.com>, <dukebasketballedge.com>, and <dukebasketballfans.com>, registered with NameSilo, 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 August 20, 2021; the Forum received payment on August 20, 2021.
On August 23, 2021, NameSilo, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <dukebasketballstore.com>, <dukebasketballshop.com>, <dukebluedevilsshop.com>, <dukebasketballedge.com>, and <dukebasketballfans.com> domain names are registered with NameSilo, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. NameSilo, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameSilo, 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 August 27, 2021, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 16, 2021 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@dukebasketballstore.com, postmaster@dukebasketballshop.com, postmaster@dukebluedevilsshop.com, postmaster@dukebasketballedge.com, postmaster@dukebasketballfans.com. Also on August 27, 2021, 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 22, 2021, 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.
PRELIMINARY ISSUE: MULTIPLE RESPONDENTS
The disputed domain names are not owned by the one party. Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules provides that a “complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder.” Nevertheless, Complainant has alleged that the domain names are effectively controlled by a single person or entity, operating under two aliases.
The approach taken to this issue by the majority of UDRP panelists is to allow a single administrative proceeding in respect of several domain names not commonly held if there is reasonable evidence of a claim to actual control by one person or entity. In this case, that evidence is said to comprise (i) the structure of the domain names which combine the trademark(s) with generic matter in a similar pattern (ii) the identity of the resolving websites which in each case show the trademark(s) as well as imagery of Complainant’s athletic mascot and other images identified with Complainant; (iii) the same Registrar and name servers, (iv) all but one domain name registered on the same day, and (v) the fact that <dukebasketballstore.com> redirects to the domain name registered later, <dukebasketballshop.com>.
Finally, Complainant provides a compelling argument that both registrant names are associated with fictitious addresses.
The Panel considers that there is adequate evidence of Complainant’s assertion of a single controlling entity and so allows these proceedings to continue against the named respondents[i], hereinafter referring to them together as “Respondent”.
A. Complainant
Complainant asserts trademark rights in DUKE and BLUE DEVILS. Complainant holds national registrations for those trademarks. Complainant submits that the domain names are confusingly similar to its trademarks.
Complainant alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.
Complainant alleges that Respondent registered the disputed domain names in bad faith having targeted Complainant’s business.
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 is a well-known educational institution, also made famous through its athletic programmes.
2. Complainant owns United States Patent & Trademark Office (“USPTO”) Reg. No. 2,317,603, registered February 15, 2000, for DUKE and Reg. No. 5,440,857, registered April 10, 2018, for BLUE DEVILS;
3. the disputed domain names <dukebasketballstore.com>, <dukebasketballshop.com>, <dukebasketballedge.com> and <dukebasketballfans.com> were registered on May 23, 2017 and the disputed domain name <dukebluedevilsshop.com> was registered on August 29, 2018; and
4. the disputed domain names resolve to identical websites, as described.
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 based on 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 and inferences set forth in the Complaint as true unless the evidence is clearly contradictory[ii].
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.
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy does not distinguish between registered and unregistered trademark rights. It is well established by decisions under this Policy that a trademark registered with a national authority is evidence of trademark rights[iii]. Complainant provides evidence of its national registrations for the DUKE and BLUE DEVILS and so the Panel finds that Complainant has rights in those trademarks.
That said, the Panel observes that the disputed domain names <dukebasketballstore.com>, <dukebasketballshop.com>, <dukebasketballedge.com> and <dukebasketballfans.com> were registered on May 23, 2017 and so predate USPTO Reg. No. 2,317,603, for the DUKE trademark. This is not a factor generally taken into account under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, being more relevant to questions of rights (second element) or bona fides (third element). However, in these proceedings the issue requires no further consideration since the Complaint carries evidence of common law use of the DUKE mark since 1924.
In terms of confusing similarity, the Complaint appends a declaratory statement that Complainant has used terms such as “basketball”, “store”, “shop” and “center” in conjunction with the trademarks before the registration of the domain names. Further, Complainant has operated a website at <dukestores.com> since 1997.
The Panel accepts that the domain names add essentially non-distinctive words such as “basketball”, “shop”, “store” or “fans”, to the trademark DUKE. Further, the gTLD, “.com” is regarded as a necessary and trivial addition.
What is missing from the Complaint is discussion of <dukebasketballedge.com> in the sense that it is unclear why the term “edge”, or “ledge” (if the words are elided), are descriptive or somehow otherwise non-distinctive. Absent any submissions the Panel approached the comparison from first principles and finds that in the composite term, “dukebasketballedge”, the element “edge” / “ledge” has little impact on the word “duke”, the trademark significance of which is underscored by the presence of the word “basketball”.
The Panel finds that none of the additions carries any distinctive value and the trademark remains the recognizable part of each of the disputed domain names. It follows that the Panel finds the disputed domain names to be confusingly similar to the trademark for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy[iv].
Accordingly, Complainant has satisfied the first element of the Policy.
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 non-commercial 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 names, after which the onus shifts to Respondent to rebut that case by demonstrating those rights or interests[v].
The names of the underlying domain name holders (“Thomas Phillips” or “Millicent Hull”) do not provide any prima facie evidence that Respondent might be commonly known by any of the disputed domain names. Complainant provides screenshots of the resolving webpages which have been described already. It is Complainant’s submission that those pages create the impression of a legitimate seller of goods bearing Complainant’s trademarks. Further, Complainant alleges that the goods offered for sale at the resolving websites are counterfeit.
Clearly, such use would not give rise to rights or a legitimate interest[vi]. Moreover, even in the absence of actual evidence that the goods are counterfeit, the Panel observes that the resolving websites fall short of the criteria laid down in the case of Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc., Case No. D2001-0903 (WIPO Nov. 6, 2001) regarding bona fide use by a re-seller[vii]. The Panel finds that Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.
The onus shifts to Respondent to establish a legitimate interest and, absent a Response, that prima facie case is not rebutted. The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or interests and so finds that Complainant has satisfied this second limb of the Policy.
Complainant must prove on the balance of probabilities both that the disputed domain names were registered and used in bad faith.
Guidance 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 finds that paragraph 4(b)(iv) has direct application. The Panel has already found the disputed domain names to be confusingly similar to the trademark; their very nature falsely suggests that the websites belong to Complainant or are endorsed by Complainant. Absent a reasoned Response, the Panel has not been presented with any explanation for use of Complainant’s mark. The Panel finds that Respondent did not have a legitimate use in mind when registering the domain names and so finds registration in bad faith under the Policy. Further, in terms of the Policy the Panel finds that Respondent has intentionally used the domain names to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the resolving websites by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of those websites. The Panel finds registration and use in bad faith and so finds that Complainant has satisfied the third and final element of the Policy[viii].
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <dukebasketballstore.com>, <dukebasketballshop.com>, <dukebluedevilsshop.com>, <dukebasketballedge.com> and <dukebasketballfans.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Debrett G. Lyons
Panelist
Date: September 23, 2021
[i] See, for example, OS Asset, Inc. v. Yan / Yanli Li; Zhichao Yang, FA1311001529354, stating that panels have “found multiple respondents to be commonly controlled where the content of their websites were substantially identical and referred Internet visitors to a common “homepage”; see also, Sharman License Holdings, Limited v. Dustin Dorrance/Dave Shullick/Euclid Investments, WIPO Case No. D2004-0659 ordering consolidation of multiple respondents and multiple domain names where the domain names were registered with the same registrar and resolved to essentially identical websites.
[ii] See, for example, Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Forum July 31, 2000) holding that the respondent’s failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of the complaint to be deemed true; Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009 (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000) (“In the absence of a response, it is appropriate to accept as true all allegations of the Complaint.”)
[iii] See, for example, State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Periasami Malain, FA 705262 (Forum June 19, 2006) (“Complainant’s registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office of the trademark, STATE FARM, establishes its rights in the STATE FARM mark pursuant to Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i).”)
[v] See, for example, Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000‑0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000).
[vi] See, for example, Wolverine World Wide, Inc. v. Fergus Knox, FA 1627751 (Forum Aug. 19, 2015) finding no bona fide offering of goods or legitimate noncommercial or fair use existed where respondent used the resolving website to sell products branded with complainant’s MERRELL mark, and were either counterfeit products or legitimate products of complainant being resold without authorization.
[vii] According to that decision, a respondent must meet the following standards: (i) respondent must actually be offering the goods or services at issue; (ii) respondent must use the disputed domain name to sell only the trademarked goods (as opposed to using the domain name to bait Internet users and then switch them to other goods); (iii) the disputed domain name must accurately disclose the registrant’s relationship with the trademark owner; and (iv) the respondent must not try to corner the market in all domain names, thus depriving the trademark owner of reflecting its own mark in a domain name.
[viii] See, for example, Fanuc Ltd v. Mach. Control Servs., FA 93667 (Forum Mar. 13, 2000) finding that the respondent violated Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark by using a domain name identical to the complainant’s mark to sell the complainant’s products.
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page