RK HOLDINGS, LLP v. julietcbn / juliet cbn
Claim Number: FA2210002017698
Complainant is RK HOLDINGS, LLP (“Complainant”), USA, represented by JungJin Lee of Trademark Lawyer Law Firm, PLLC, Michigan. Respondent is julietcbn / juliet cbn (“Respondent”), USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <ruralkings.co>, 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.
Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on October 26, 2022; Forum received payment on October 26, 2022.
On October 26, 2022, NameSilo, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <ruralkings.co> domain name is 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 November 1, 2022, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of November 21, 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@ruralkings.co. Also on November 1, 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, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On November 29, 2022, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that 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, 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 provides a broad range of necessities, essential goods, food, feed, seed, and other farm and home products. Complainant claims rights in the RURAL KING mark, among others, through its registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 2,927,520 registered February 22, 2005). The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s RURAL KING mark.
ii) Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Complainant authorized or licensed Respondent to use its RURAL KING mark in the disputed domain name. Respondent does not use the domain name in connection with any bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate non-commercial or fair use as Respondent passes itself off as Complainant.
iii) Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. When the disputed domain name is accessed, the webpage not only give the appearance of a legitimate business, but intentionally mislead consumers into thinking Respondent is affiliated with Complainant, when it is not. Respondent had knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the RURAL KING mark at the time of registering the disputed domain name.
B. Respondent
Respondent did not submit a Response in this proceeding.
1. The disputed domain name was registered on December 27, 2021.
2. Complainant has established rights in the RURAL KING mark through its registration with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 2,927,520 registered February 22, 2005).
3. The disputed domain name's resolving website prominently displays “Rualkings.co” which is confusingly similar to Complainant’s RURAL KING mark and <ruralking.com> domain name and offers competing goods.
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 claims rights in the RURAL KING mark through its registration with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 2,927,520 registered February 22, 2005). Registration with the USPTO is generally sufficient in demonstrating rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). As Complainant provides evidence of its trademark registration for the RURAL KING mark, the Panel finds Complainant has rights in the RURAL KING mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant next argues that the disputed domain name <ruralkings.co> is confusingly similar to the RURAL KING mark as the <ruralkings.co> website is designed to direct customers into thinking that they had reached the Complainant’s actual site through a typographical error (missing the “m” in “.com”).
The Panel notes that the disputed domain name fully incorporates Complainant’s RURAL KING mark and merely adds the letter “s” onto the end of the RURAL KING trademark to create a plural word. The Panel notes that the plural form of Complainant’s mark by adding the ccTLD “.co” which is a country code for Colombia is not enough to differentiate the disputed domain name from Complainant’s mark. See Cargill, Incorporated v. RN WebReg c/o RareNames, Inc., FA1260307 (Forum, June 12, 2009) (finding the mark CARGILL and domain name cargills.com confusingly similar); Google Inc. v. Texas International Property Associates, FA1212995 (Forum Aug. 25, 2008) (finding youtubes.com confusingly similar to YOUTUBE). Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s RURAL KING mark.
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 contends that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Complainant authorized or licensed to Respondent any rights in the RURAL KING mark. Where a response is lacking, WHOIS information may be used to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Dale Anderson, FA1504001613011 (Forum May 21, 2015) (concluding that because the WHOIS record lists “Dale Anderson” as the registrant of the disputed domain name, the respondent was not commonly known by the <statefarmforum.com> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)). Additionally, lack of authorization to use a complainant’s mark may indicate that the respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. See Alaska Air Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines v. Song Bin, FA1408001574905 (Forum Sept. 17, 2014) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name as demonstrated by the WHOIS information and based on the fact that the complainant had not licensed or authorized the respondent to use its ALASKA AIRLINES mark). The Panel notes that the unmasked WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the registrant as “julietcbn / juliet cbn.” Additionally, there is no evidence to suggest that Respondent was authorized to use Complainant’s mark in the disputed domain name. Therefore, the Panel finds Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
Complainant contends that Respondent does not use the domain name in connection with any bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate non-commercial or fair use as Respondent passes itself off as Complainant. Respondent uses the disputed domain name to direct Internet users to a website that resembles Complainant’s official website but is controlled by Respondent, which misleads the public into purchasing items and submitting their payment information on the phishing site. The website prominently displays “Rualkings.co” name which is confusingly similar to Complainant’s RURAL KING trademark <ruralking.com> domain name. Complainant has received complaints from third parties regarding Respondent’s subject website. Complainant provides a screenshot of the disputed domain name’s resolving website. The Panel finds that the use of the disputed domain name to pass Respondent off as Complainant does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor any legitimate non-commercial or fair use.
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 contends that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. The registration and use of the disputed domain name by Respondent is clearly for the purpose of disrupting the business of Complainant and to attempt to attract Internet users to Respondent’s website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the respondent’s site.
Use of a disputed domain name to pass off as a complainant and offer competing or counterfeited goods may be evidence of bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv). See Ripple Labs Inc. v. Jessie McKoy / Ripple Reserve Fund, FA 1790949 (Forum July 9, 2018) (finding bad faith per Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv) where the respondent used the disputed domain name to resolve to a website upon which the respondent passes off as the complainant and offers online cryptocurrency services in direct competition with the complainant’s business), see also Guess? IP Holder L.P. and Guess?, Inc. v. LI FANGLIN, FA 1610067 (Forum Apr. 25, 2015) (finding respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) because the respondent used the resolving website to sell the complainant’s products, using images copied directly from the complainant’s website), see also 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.”).
The Panel recalls that Complainant has provided the Panel with a screenshot of the disputed domain name's resolving website which resembles Complainant’s official website, which prominently displays “Rualkings.co” name which is confusingly similar to Complainant’s RURAL KING trademark and <ruralking.com> domain name, and offers competing goods. Therefore, the Panel agrees and finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith per Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) or (iv).
Complainant additionally contends Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith as Respondent had knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the RURAL KING mark prior to registration of the disputed domain name based on Respondent’s use of Complainant’s name and exact logo. While constructive knowledge is insufficient for a finding of bad faith, worldwide prominence of a mark can demonstrate actual knowledge of a complainant’s rights in a mark at registration and show bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See The Am. Auto. Assoc., Inc. v. Zag Media Corp., FA 1226952 (Forum Nov. 13, 2008) ("Mere constructive knowledge is insufficient to support a finding of bad faith."); see also AutoZone Parts, Inc. v. Ken Belden, FA 1815011 (Forum Dec. 24, 2018) (“Complainant contends that Respondent’s knowledge can be presumed in light of the substantial fame and notoriety of the AUTOZONE mark, as well as the fact that Complainant is the largest retailer in the field. The Panel here finds that Respondent did have actual knowledge of Complainant’s mark, demonstrating bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”). The Panel infers, due to the notoriety of Complainant’s mark and the manner of use of the disputed domain name that Respondent registered the disputed domain name with knowledge of Complainant’s rights in its mark which constitutes bad faith registration per 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 <ruralkings.co> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq., Panelist
Dated: December 2, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page