Wahl Clipper Corporation v. Jennifer Walker
Claim Number: FA2204001992013
Complainant is Wahl Clipper Corporation ("Complainant"), represented by Joshua S. Frick of Barnes & Thornburg LLP, Illinois, USA. Respondent is Jennifer Walker ("Respondent"), Pennsylvania, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <wahlus.shop>, 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.
David E. Sorkin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on April 12, 2022; the Forum received payment on April 12, 2022.
On April 12, 2022, Dynadot, LLC confirmed by email to the Forum that the <wahlus.shop> 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 April 13, 2022, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of May 3, 2022 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via email to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@wahlus.shop. Also on April 13, 2022, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the email 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 5, 2022, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed David E. Sorkin 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 has marketed and sold hair care products under the WAHL mark for more than 100 years. Complainant's products are sold throughout the United States and in 165 countries worldwide. Complainant owns longstanding United States trademark registrations for WAHL in both standard character and design form and also asserts common law rights in the mark. Complainant claims that the WAHL mark has become famous as a result of longstanding and extensive use and promotion.
Respondent registered the disputed domain name <wahlus.shop> in March 2022. The domain name is being used for a website that displays Complainant's WAHL mark and logo with images of Complainant's products and accompanying text (both of which are copied directly from Complainant's websites), and offers or purports to offer the products for sale. Complainant states that Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name, is not associated with Complainant, and is not licensed or otherwise authorized to use Complainant's mark.
Complainant states further that the disputed domain name and the website to which it resolves are nearly identical to the domain name and website that were the subject of a prior proceeding under the Policy. See Wahl Clipper Corp. v. David W Craft male, FA 1968884 (Forum Nov. 22, 2021) (ordering transfer of <wahlusa.shop>). Complainant suggests that Respondent may be the same person or entity as the respondent in that proceeding.
Complainant contends on the above grounds that the disputed domain name <wahlus.shop> is confusingly similar to its WAHL mark; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
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 Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, § 4.3 (3d ed. 2017), available at http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (dismissing complaint where complainant failed to "produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations").
The disputed domain name <wahlus.shop> incorporates Complainant's registered WAHL trademark, adding the generic term "US" and the ".shop" top-level domain. These additions do not substantially diminish the similarity between the domain name and Complainant's mark. See, e.g., Wahl Clipper Corp. v. David W Craft male, supra (finding <wahlusa.shop> confusingly similar to WAHL); Clorox Co. v. WhoisGuard Protected, WhoisGuard, Inc. / Enos Villanueva, Melissa Rosenberg, Yang Ming, D2021-0603 (WIPO June 1, 2021) (finding <cloroxus.shop> confusingly similar to CLOROX). The Panel considers the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights.
Under the Policy, the Complainant must first make a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and then the burden shifts to the Respondent to come forward with concrete evidence of such rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Productions, Inc. v. Entertainment Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006).
The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's registered mark without authorization, and it is being used for a commercial website that passes off as Complainant, using Complainant's mark and content copied from Complainant's websites to create the false appearance of a connection to Complainant, and purporting to offer what appear to be Complainant's products for sale. Such use does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests under the Policy. See, e.g., Wahl Clipper Corp. v. David W Craft male, supra (finding lack of rights or interests in similar circumstances); Wahl Clipper Corp. v. ss zz, FA 1949555 (Forum June 30, 2021) (same).
Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name, and Respondent has failed to come forward with any evidence of such rights or interests. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has sustained its burden of proving that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
Finally, Complainant must show that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Under paragraph 4(b)(iii) of the Policy, bad faith may be shown by evidence that Respondent registered the disputed domain name "primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor." Under paragraph 4(b)(iv), bad faith may be shown by evidence that "by using the domain name, [Respondent] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [Respondent's] web site 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 [Respondent's] web site or location or of a product or service on [Respondent's] web site or location."
Respondent registered a domain name incorporating Complainant's famous mark and is using it to pass off as Complainant, promoting unauthorized and possibly counterfeit products for sale in a manner clearly designed to create the false impression of association or affiliation with Complainant, and possibly phishing for personal information. Such conduct is indicative of bad faith registration and use under the Policy. See, e.g., Wahl Clipper Corp. v. David W Craft male, supra (finding bad faith registration and use in similar circumstances); Wahl Clipper Corp. v. ss zz, supra (same). The Panel so finds.
Having considered the three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <wahlus.shop> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
David E. Sorkin, Panelist
Dated: May 5, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page