DECISION

 

PHE, Inc. v. WEB DESIGNER 23

Claim Number: FA2211002019660

 

PARTIES

Complainant is PHE, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Susan Freya Olive of Olive & Olive, P.A., North Carolina, USA.  Respondent is WEB DESIGNER 23 (“Respondent”), New York, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <adamevesextoys.com>, registered with CloudFlare, Inc.

 

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.

 

Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on November 9, 2022; Forum received payment on November 9, 2022.

 

On November 10, 2022, CloudFlare, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <adamevesextoys.com> domain name is registered with CloudFlare, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name.  CloudFlare, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the CloudFlare, Inc. 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 14, 2022, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of December 5, 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@adamevesextoys.com.  Also on November 14, 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.

 

On December 13, 2022, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Paul M. DeCicco 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.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant contends as follows:

 

Complainant has become the nation’s largest provider of adult entertainment products and, operating under its ADAM & EVE marks, has served well over ten million.

 

Complainant has various USPTO registrations for ADAM & EVE.

 

The  <adamevesextoys.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ADAM & EVE mark as it uses a variation of the Complainant’s famous ADAM & EVE mark in combination with the descriptive term “sex” and “toys”.

 

Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <adamevesextoys.com> domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name. Respondent is not using the domain name in connection with any bona fide offering of goods and services or for any legitimate or fair use because Respondent is diverting Internet users to a website that is passing itself off as Complainant and selling products that directly compete with Complainant.

 

Respondent registered and uses the <adamevesextoys.com> domain name in bad faith. Respondent attempted to pass itself off as Complainant to attract internet users to Respondent’s website for commercial gain. Respondent used a proxy service to conceal its identity when registering its domain name. Additionally, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the ADAM & EVE mark prior to registration of the disputed domain name.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant has trademark rights in the ADAM & EVE mark.

 

Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and had not been authorized to use Complainant’s trademark in any capacity.

 

Respondent registered the at‑issue domain name after Complainant acquired rights in the ADAM & EVE trademark.

 

Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to redirect to a website that sells products that compete with Complainant’s products.

 

DISCUSSION

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”).

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

The at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.

 

Complainant’s USPTO registration(s) for ADAM & EVE is sufficient to demonstrate Complainant’s rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Home Depot Product Authority, LLC v. Samy Yosef / Express Transporting, FA 1738124 (Forum July 28, 2017) (finding that registration with the USPTO was sufficient to establish the complainant’s rights in the HOME DEPOT mark).

 

Respondent’s <adamevesextoys.com> domain name contains Complainant’s ADAM & EVE  trademark less its domain name impermissible spaces and ampersand, followed with the descriptive term or terms “sex toys” with all followed by the “.com” top-level domain name. The differences between Complainant’s trademark and Respondent’s at-issue domain name fail to distinguish the domain name from the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent’s <adamevesextoys.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ADAM & EVE trademark. See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) (“Where a relevant trademark is recognizable within a disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element.”); see also Deutsche Lufthansa AG v. Milen Radumilo, FA 1764056 (Forum Jan. 19, 2018) (“No domain name may contain ampersands because ampersands are also prohibited characters in domain names. Therefore, the omission of ampersands is disregarded under a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis.  A TLD (whether a gTLD, sTLD or ccTLD) is disregarded under a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis because domain name syntax requires TLDs.”).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

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. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006). Since Respondent failed to respond, Complainant’s prima facie showing acts conclusively.

 

Respondent lacks both rights and legitimate interests in respect of the <adamevesextoys.com> domain name. Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant’s trademark in any capacity and, as discussed below, there are no Policy ¶ 4(c) circumstances from which the Panel might find that Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in respect of the at‑issue domain name.

 

The WHOIS information for the at-issue domain name reveals that the domain name’s registrant is “WEB DESIGNER 23”  and the record before the Panel contains no evidence that otherwise tends to show that Respondent is commonly known by the <adamevesextoys.com> domain name. The Panel therefore concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Coppertown Drive-Thru Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089 (Forum July 17, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <coppertown.com> domain name where there was no evidence in the record, including the WHOIS information, suggesting that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name).

 

Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to pass itself off as Complainant. The domain name forwards internet users to a website that offers products competing with Complainant’s offering.  Such use of <adamevesextoys.com> indicates neither a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor any legitimate non-commercial or fair use. See Walgreen Co. v. Privacy protection service - whoisproxy.ru, FA 1785188 (Forum June 10, 2018) (“Respondent uses the <walgreensviagra.net> domain name to pass itself off as Complainant and display links to a website offering products similar to those offered by Complainant. Using the domain name in this manner is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a non-commercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”); see also, Vanguard Trademark Holdings USA LLC v. Dan Stanley Saturne, FA 1785085 (Forum June 8, 2018) (“Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name does not amount to a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use” where “Respondent is apparently using the disputed domain name to offer for sale competing services.”).

 

Given the forgoing, Complainant satisfies its initial burden and demonstrates Respondent’s lack of rights and lack of legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Respondent’s <adamevesextoys.com> domain name was registered and used in bad faith. As discussed below without being exhaustive, bad faith circumstances are present which lead the Panel to conclude that Respondent acted in bad faith pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.

 

First, Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to pass itself off as Complainant and trick internet users into believing that the domain name and the website that the domain name is redirected to are sponsored by Complainant. The at-issue domain name’s landing website promotes and sells merchandise competing with that offered by Complainant. Respondent’s use of <adamevesextoys.com> to attract internet users that falsely believe that the at-issue domain name will deliver them to content sponsored by or affiliated with Complainant and then capitalizing on such internet users’ confusion by offering competing products demonstrates Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the domain name under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Nestlé Waters North America, Inc. v. Domain Administrator / Fundacion Privacy Services LTD, FA 1792308 (Forum July 22, 2018) (Finding Respondent uses the domain names to point to a site which offers links relating to Complainant’s business. “Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain Internet users to its website by creating likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trade marks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the web site likely to disrupt the business of the Complainant.”); see also, G.D. Searle & Co. v. Celebrex Drugstore, FA 123933 (Forum Nov. 21, 2002) (finding that the respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) because the respondent was using the confusingly similar domain name to attract internet users to its commercial website); see also, See Citadel LLC and its related entity, KCG IP Holdings, LLC v. Joel Lespinasse / Radius Group, FA1409001579141 (Forum Oct. 15, 2014) (“Here, the Panel finds evidence of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) bad faith as Respondent has used the confusingly similar domain name to promote its own financial management and consulting services in competition with Complainant.”).

 

Moreover, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the ADAM & EVE mark when it registered <adamevesextoys.com> as a domain name. Respondent’s actual knowledge of Complainant’s trademark prior to registering the at-issue domain name is evident from the long time notoriety of Complainant’s trademark, from the similarity between the at-issue domain name and Complainant’s array of authentic domain names, and from Respondent’s use of the domain name to offer products competing with Complainant.  Registering and using a confusingly similar domain name with knowledge of Complainant’s rights in such domain name in itself shows Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of <adamevesextoys.com> pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name); see also, Ripple Labs Inc. v. Jessie McKoy / Ripple Reserve Fund, FA 1790949 (Forum July 9, 2018) (“Complainant contends Respondent’s appropriation of Complainant’s trademark was a clear intent to trade upon Complainant’s reputation and goodwill in order to confuse Internet users. Therefore, the Panel finds Respondent did have actual knowledge of Complainant’s mark prior to registration and this constitutes bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”); see also, Univision Comm'cns Inc. v. Norte, FA 1000079 (Forum Aug. 16, 2007) (rejecting the respondent's contention that it did not register the disputed domain name in bad faith since the panel found that the respondent had knowledge of the complainant's rights in the UNIVISION mark when registering the disputed domain name).

 

DECISION

Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <adamevesextoys.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist

Dated:  December 13, 2022

 

 

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page