Pexco LLC v. Best Choice First Choice / Best Choice First Choice, LLC
Claim Number: FA2211002020525
Complainant is Pexco LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Christopher D. Casavale of Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP, South Carolina. Respondent is Best Choice First Choice / Best Choice First Choice, LLC (“Respondent”), Florida.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <fenceweave.us>, registered with NameCheap, Inc..
The undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on November 16, 2022; Forum received payment on November 16, 2022.
On November 16, 2022, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <fenceweave.us> domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameCheap, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameCheap, Inc. registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with the U.S. Department of Commerce’s usTLD Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On November 22, 2022, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of December 12, 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@fenceweave.us. Also on November 22, 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 December 20, 2022, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Sandra J. Franklin 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 to the usTLD Dispute Resolution Policy (“Rules”). Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the usTLD Policy, usTLD 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
1. Respondent’s <fenceweave.us> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s FENCE-WEAVE mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <fenceweave.us> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and uses the <fenceweave.us> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent did not file a Response.
Complainant, Pexco LLC, is a leading manufacturer of plastic products. Complainant holds a registration for the FENCE-WEAVE mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 1,744,536 registered January 5, 1993).
Respondent registered the <fenceweave.us> domain name on August 12, 2022, and uses it for pay-per-click links.
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 or is being used in bad faith.
Given the similarity between the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“UDRP”) and the usTLD Policy, the Panel will draw upon UDRP precedent as applicable in rendering its decision.
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”).
The Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the FENCE-WEAVE mark based on the registration of the mark with the USPTO. See Nintendo of America Inc. v. lin amy, FA 1818485 (Forum Dec. 24, 2018) ("Complainant’s ownership of a USPTO trademark registration for the NINTENDO mark evidences Complainant’s rights in such mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”)
Respondent’s <fenceweave.us> domain name uses the FENCE-WEAVE mark, removes the hyphen and adds the “.us” ccTLD. The addition of a ccTLD and the removal of punctuation fails to sufficiently distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Nat’l Cable Satellite Corp. v. Black Sun Surf Co., FA 94738 (Forum June 19, 2000) (holding that the domain name <cspan.net>, which omitted the hyphen from the trademark spelling, C-SPAN, is confusingly similar to the complainant's mark); see also Am. Express Co. v. McWIlliam, FA 268423 (Forum July 6, 2004) (holding that the ccTLD “.us” does not negate confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent’s <fenceweave.us> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s FENCE-WEAVE mark.
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Once Complainant makes a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), 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 lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <fenceweave.us> domain name since Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name and Complainant has not authorized or licensed to Respondent any rights in the FENCE-WEAVE mark. The WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the registrant as “Best Choice First Choice / Best Choice First Choice, LLC.” Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and thus has no rights under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). 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); see also Bittrex, Inc. v. Operi Manaha, FA 1815225 (Forum Dec. 10, 2018) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <appbittrex.com> domain name where the WHOIS information listed Respondent as “Operi Manaha,” and nothing else in the record suggested Respondent was authorized to use the BITTREX mark.)
Complainant argues that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use as the disputed domain name resolves to a page displaying links to competitors. Using a disputed domain name to redirect users to competing services is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(ii) or (iv). See H-D Michigan Inc. v. Buell, FA 1106640 (Forum Jan. 2, 2008) (finding that, because the “[r]espondent’s disputed domain names resolve to a website featuring a series of advertising links to various third-parties, many of whom offer products and services in direct competition with those offered under [the complainant’s] mark,” the respondent is not using the disputed domain names for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use). Complainant provides evidence showing that the disputed domain name resolves to a page displaying pay-per-click links. The Panel finds that this is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, and thus Respondent has no rights under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) or (iv).
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Complainant argues that Respondent registered and uses the <fenceweave.us> domain name in bad faith because Respondent attempts to capitalize on initial interest confusion with Complainant’s mark and attract Internet users to its competing website for commercial gain. The Panel agrees and finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See DatingDirect.com Ltd. v. Aston, FA 593977 (Forum Dec. 28, 2005) (“the Panel finds the respondent is appropriating the complainant’s mark in a confusingly similar domain name for commercial gain, which is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶4(b)(iv).”); see also Danbyg Ejendomme A/S v. lb Hansen / guerciotti, FA1504001613867 (Forum June 2, 2015) (finding that the respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the disputed domain name resolved to a website that offered both competing hyperlinks and hyperlinks unrelated to the complainant’s business).
Complainant also argues that Respondent registered and uses the <fenceweave.us> domain name in bad faith because Respondent offers the domain for sale to the public. A general offer of sale of a disputed domain name can evince of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(i). See Diners Club Int’l Ltd. v. Domain Admin******It's all in the name******, FA 156839 (Forum June 23, 2003) (finding that when the domain name itself notes that it is “available for lease or sale,” evidence that the domain name was registered and used in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(i) can be inferred from the fact that “the sole value of the [<wwwdinersclub.com] domain name is dictated by its relation to the complainant’s registered DINERS CLUB mark). Complainant shows that Respondent offers the disputed domain name for sale. The Panel finds that this is further evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(i).
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Having established all three elements required under the usTLD Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <fenceweave.us> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist
Dated: December 21, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page