La-Z-Boy Incorporated v. Carolina Rodrigues / Fundacion Comercio Electronico
Claim Number: FA2203001987264
Complainant is La-Z-Boy Incorporated (“Complainant”), represented by Elizabeth Brock of Harness, Dickey & Pierce PLC, Michigan, USA. Respondent is Carolina Rodrigues / Fundacion Comercio Electronico (“Respondent”), Panama.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <lazyboycredit.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.
PANEL
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 7, 2022. The Forum received payment on March 7, 2022.
On March 8, 2022, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <lazyboycredit.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 11, 2022, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 31, 2022 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@lazyboycredit.com. Also on March 11, 2022, 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 5, 2022, 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
Incorporated in 1929, Complainant produces residential furniture. It maintains a website at “www.la-z-boy.com” in connection with the advertisement, promotion and sale of furniture and related products and offers financing or “credit” towards the purchase of its products. Complainant also sells its furniture and home goods in Panama.
Complainant has rights in the LA-Z-BOY mark based upon registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”). Respondent’s <lazyboycredit.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark.
Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <lazyboycredit.com> domain name. Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant’s LA-Z-BOY mark and is not commonly known by the domain name. Additionally, Respondent does not use the domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent uses the domain name to host pay-per-click links.
Respondent is engaging in “combosquatting” by combining Complainant’s LA-Z-BOY mark with the generic keyword “Credit.” Combosquatting seeks to take advantage of users who try to navigate directly to a particular page within a brand owner’s website. The user combines the trademark owner’s mark and primary domain name with descriptive or generic words that match the particular webpage they are looking for within the trademark owner’s website under the belief that doing so will shortcut them to the desired webpage without needing to navigate through the mark owner’s larger website. Accordingly, combosquatting is premised on the idea that the domain name’s combination of a trademark and descriptive or generic words will confuse Internet users and divert them to the combosquatter’s webpage. Such a use does not constitute a legitimate use and the combosquatter does not have any rights to or legitimate interests in the combosquatted domain name.
Respondent registered and uses the <lazyboycredit.com> domain name in bad faith. Respondent uses the domain name to cause initial interest confusion and host pay-per-click links. Respondent registered the domain name using a privacy service and has left the domain name’s resolving webpage in an inactive, auto-generated form. Respondent has taken affirmative steps to set up MX records for the domain name, which could be used to perpetrate an email phishing scam.
Complainant notes that a search of Forum decisions indicates that Respondent Carolina Rodrigues has been named as a respondent in 209 UDRP decisions – 208 adverse to Respondent. In addition, a search of WIPO decisions lists 267 decisions naming Respondent Carolina Rodrigues. When Complainant’s Representative researched the same Respondent in November 2021, there were 227 WIPO decisions listing Carolina Rodrigues, with 224 of those decisions adverse to Respondent. Based on these adverse decisions, Respondent is certainly a repeat offender with a pattern of domain name abuse suggesting bad faith. See Tommy John, Inc. v. Carolina Rodrigues / Fundacion Comercio Electronico, FA1878688 (Forum Feb. 6, 2020) (finding bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii) where the respondent had been subject to numerous UDRP proceedings where panels ordered the transfer of disputed domain names containing the trademarks of the complainants).
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 LA-Z-BOY mark based upon numerous registrations around the world, including with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 1,532,017, registered March 28, 1989). The Panel finds Respondent’s <lazyboycredit.com> domain name to be confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark because it contains the LA-Z-BOY mark in its entirety, written in a phonetically identical form, merely adding a “y” to make the word “Lazy” and the term “credit”, which are insufficient to distinguish the domain name from the mark, and the inconsequential top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com”, which may be ignored.
Complainant has established this element.
(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 <lazyboycredit.com> domain name was registered on February 1, 2022, many years after Complainant has shown that its LA-Z-BOY mark had become very well-known. It resolves to a pay-per-click webpage, containing links related to “Credit Card Debt,” “Recliners,” “Sofa Recliners,” and “Lazyboy Leather Recliner.” A user who clicks the links on the initial resolved webpage is directed to another pay-per-click website that contains additional links to third-party websites, including a competitor of Complainant.
These circumstances, together with Complainant’s assertions, are sufficient to constitute a prima facie showing of absence of rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name on the part of Respondent. The evidentiary burden therefore shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the <lazyboycredit.com> domain name. See JUUL Labs, Inc. v. Dryx Emerson / KMF Events LTD, FA1906001849706 (Forum July 17, 2019).
Respondent has made no attempt to do so.
The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name.
Complainant has established this element.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out four illustrative circumstances, which, though not exclusive, shall be evidence of the registration and use of the domain name in bad faith for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, including:
(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.
The circumstances set out above in relation to the second element satisfy the Panel that Respondent was fully aware of Complainant’s very well-known LA-Z-BOY mark when Respondent registered the <lazyboycredit.com> domain name and that Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s LA-Z-BOY mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of its website and the services offered at its website. This demonstrates registration and use in bad faith to attract users for commercial gain under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
Complainant has established this element.
Further, the Panel accepts that Respondent is a repeat offender with a pattern of domain name abuse suggesting bad faith.
DECISION
Complainant having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <lazyboycredit.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Alan L. Limbury, Panelist
Dated: April 7, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page