Reddy Ice LLC v. Vu Dinh
Claim Number: FA2109001964238
Complainant is Reddy Ice LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Jeffrey M. Becker, Texas, USA. Respondent is Vu Dinh (“Respondent”), Vietnam.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <redsdyice.com>, registered with Dynadot, 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.
Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on September 17, 2021; the Forum received payment on September 17, 2021.
On September 21, 2021, Dynadot, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <redsdyice.com> domain name is registered with Dynadot, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Dynadot, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Dynadot, 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 September 22, 2021, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of October 12, 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@redsdyice.com. Also on September 22, 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 October 14, 2021, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. 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
i) Complainant, Reddy Ice LLC, is a manufacturer and distributor of packaged ice. Complainant has rights in the REDDY ICE mark based upon the registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. 2,686,355, registered Feb. 11, 2003). The disputed domain name is identical and/or confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark because it incorporates Complainant’s REDDY ICE mark in its entirety, simply adding the letter “s” and the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).
ii) Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent had no consent to use Complainant’s REDDY ICE mark and is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Additionally, Respondent does not use the disputed domain for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent uses the domain to pass off as Complainant and mimic its webpage.
iii) Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent disrupts Complainant’s business for commercial gain by mirroring Complainant’s webpage at the disputed domain. Additionally, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the REDDY ICE mark at the time the disputed domain name was registered.
B. Respondent
Respondent did not submit a response.
1. The disputed domain name was registered on September 17, 2021.
2. Complainant has established rights in the REDDY ICE mark based upon the registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. 2,686,355, registered Feb. 11, 2003).
3. Respondent uses the disputed domain to pass off as Complainant and mimic its webpage.
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 asserts rights in the REDDY ICE mark based upon the registration with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. 2,686,355, registered Feb. 11, 2003). Registration of a mark with the USPTO is generally sufficient to establish rights in the mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See DIRECTV, LLC v. The Pearline Group, FA 1818749 (Forum Dec. 30, 2018) (“Complainant’s ownership of a USPTO registration for DIRECTV demonstrate its rights in such mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”). Since Complainant provides evidence of registration of the REDDY ICE mark with the USPTO, the Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark because it incorporates Complainant’s REDDY ICE mark in its entirety, simply adding the letter “s” and the “.com” gTLD. Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), addition of a single letter and a gTLD is insufficient to negate confusing similarity between a domain name and the mark it incorporates. See Paperless Inc. v. ICS Inc, FA 1629515 (Forum Aug. 17, 2015) (establishing a confusing similarity between the <paperlessspost.com> domain name and the PAPERLESS POST trademark in part because the domain name contained the entire mark and added an additional “s”). Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the REDDY ICE mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)); see also Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) (“Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests”).
Complainant argues that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name because Respondent had no consent to use Complainant’s REDDY ICE 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.”). Additionally, lack of authorization to use a mark constitutes further showing that a respondent lacks rights in a mark. See Navistar International Corporation v. N Rahmany, FA1505001620789 (Forum June 8, 2015) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name where the complainant had never authorized the respondent to incorporate its NAVISTAR mark in any domain name registration). The WHOIS information of record notes “Vu Dinh” as the registrant and no information suggests that Complainant has authorized Respondent to use the REDDY ICE mark in any way. Thus, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
Complainant also argues that Respondent does not use the disputed domain for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use and instead uses the domain to pass off as Complainant and mimic its webpage. Replication of a complainant’s website to promote confusion is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See ShipChain, Inc. v. 谢东东 / 谢东东, FA 1785189 (Forum June 21, 2018) (“The resolving webpages between Complainant’s and Respondent’s websites are virtually the same. Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name does not confer rights and legitimate interests under Policy ¶¶4(c)(i) and (iii).”). Complainant provides a screenshot of the webpage resolving at the disputed domain, as well as a comparison between Complainant and Respondent’s webpages. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not using the domain name for 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).
The Panel finds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case that arises from the considerations above. All of these matters go to make out the prima facie case against Respondent. As Respondent has not filed a Response or attempted by any other means to rebut the prima facie case against it, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Complainant argues that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith as Respondent disrupts Complainant’s business for commercial gain by mirroring Complainant’s webpage at the disputed domain. Use of a disputed domain to create confusion with a Complainant may suggest bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) or (iv), particularly where the domain is used for fraudulent purposes. See Artistic Pursuit LLC v. calcuttawebdevelopers.com, FA 894477 (Forum Mar. 8, 2007) (finding that the respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name, which displayed a website virtually identical to the complainant’s website, constituted bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)); Bittrex, Inc. v. Wuxi Yilian LLC, FA 1760517 (Forum Dec. 27, 2017) (finding bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where “Respondent registered and uses the <lbittrex.com> domain name in bad faith by directing Internet users to a website that mimics Complainant’s own website in order to confuse users into believing that Respondent is Complainant, or is otherwise affiliated or associated with Complainant.”). As noted above, Complainant provides a screenshot of the webpage resolving at the disputed domain, as well as a comparison between Complainant and Respondent’s webpages. Complainant also notes that the webpage resolving at the disputed domain has been identified as a potential security/malware threat. Therefore, the Panel finds Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and/or (iv).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <redsdyice.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq., Panelist
Dated: October 22, 2021
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page