Office Depot, LLC and The Office Club, Inc. v. Azeem Shaikh
Claim Number: FA2211002020588
Complainant is Office Depot, LLC and The Office Club, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Joshua M. Dalton of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Massachusetts, USA. Respondent is Azeem Shaikh (“Respondent”), India.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <officedepotsurveyus.com>, registered with NameCheap, Inc.
The undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his or her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Richard Hill 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 <officedepotsurveyus.com> 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 ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On November 17, 2022, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of December 7, 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@officedepotsurveyus.com. Also on November 17, 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. Respondent did however send an email to Forum, see below.
On December 14, 2022, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Richard Hill 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
Complainant states that it is a leading retail and B2B integrated distribution company providing business services and supplies, products and technology solutions to individuals and companies of all sizes. It employs approximately 37,000 individuals and operates approximately 1,154 brick-and-mortar locations throughout the United States. Complainant asserts rights in the OFFICE DEPOT mark based upon its registration in the United States in 1987.
Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its OFFICE DEPOT mark as it incorporates the mark in its entirety and the only alterations are the addition of the generic term “survey”, the geographic term “US” and the generic top level domain (“gTLD”) “.com”.
According to Complainant, Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with any bona fide offering of goods and services or for any legitimate or fair use. Instead, the disputed domain name directs to a fraudulent website that appears to be engaged in phishing for consumers’ personal information. The resolving website purports to be a legitimate Office Depot site, displaying images with multiple images of the OFFICE DEPOT marks, that prompts consumers to complete a survey form in order to “win a $10 gift card” upon completion of the survey. The site is in no way legitimate.
Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent diverted Internet users to its website, which appears to be a valid Office Depot survey, in order to obtain personal information which constitutes phishing. Respondent used a privacy protection service to register the disputed domain name. Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the OFFICE DEPOT mark prior to registration of the disputed domain name.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. In its email to Forum, Respondent states: “Domain already deleted!!”.
Preliminary Issue: Multiple Complainants
Paragraph 3(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”) provides that “[a]ny person or entity may initiate an administrative proceeding by submitting a complaint.” Forum’s Supplemental Rule 1(e) defines “The Party Initiating a Complaint Concerning a Domain Name Registration” as a “single person or entity claiming to have rights in the domain name, or multiple persons or entities who have a sufficient nexus who can each claim to have rights to all domain names listed in the Complaint.”
There are two Complainants in this matter: Office Depot, LLC and The Office Club, Inc. The Office Club, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Office Depot, LLC.
Previous panels have interpreted Forum’s Supplemental Rule 1(e) to allow multiple parties to proceed as one party where they can show a sufficient link to each other. For example, in Vancouver Org. Comm. for the 2010 Olympic and Paralymic Games & Int’l Olympic Comm. v. Malik, FA 666119 (Forum May 12, 2006), the panel stated:
It has been accepted that it is permissible for two complainants to submit a single complaint if they can demonstrate a link between the two entities such as a relationship involving a license, a partnership or an affiliation that would establish the reason for the parties bringing the complaint as one entity.
In Tasty Baking, Co. & Tastykake Invs., Inc. v. Quality Hosting, FA 208854 (Forum Dec. 28, 2003), the panel treated the two complainants as a single entity where both parties held rights in trademarks contained within the disputed domain names. Likewise, in Am. Family Health Srvs. Group, LLC v. Logan, FA 220049 (Forum Feb. 6, 2004), the panel found a sufficient link between the complainants where there was a license between the parties regarding use of the TOUGHLOVE mark.
The Panel finds that the evidence in the Complaint is sufficient to establish a sufficient nexus or link between the Complainants, and thus it will treat them as a single entity in this proceeding.
For the reasons set forth below, the Panel will not make any findings of fact.
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.
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."
The Panel interprets Respondent’s email to Forum as indicating consent to transfer the disputed domain name. Thus, in the present case, the parties have both asked for the domain name to be transferred to the Complainant. In accordance with a general legal principle governing arbitrations as well as national court proceedings, this Panel holds that it cannot act nec ultra petita nec infra petita, that is, that it cannot issue a decision that would be either less than requested, nor more than requested by the parties. Since the requests of the parties in this case are identical, the Panel has no scope to do anything other than to recognize the common request, and it has no mandate to make findings of fact or of compliance (or not) with the Policy.
See Malev Hungarian Airlines, Ltd. v. Vertical Axis Inc., FA 212653 (Forum Jan. 13, 2004); see also Boehringer Ingelheim Int’l GmbH v. Modern Ltd. – Cayman Web Dev., FA 133625 (Forum Jan. 9, 2003) (transferring the domain name registration where the respondent stipulated to the transfer); see also Disney Enters., Inc. v. Morales, FA 475191 (Forum June 24, 2005) (“[U]nder such circumstances, where Respondent has agreed to comply with Complainant’s request, the Panel felt it to be expedient and judicial to forego the traditional UDRP analysis and order the transfer of the domain names.”).
For the reasons set forth above, the Panel will not analyze this element of the Policy.
For the reasons set forth above, the Panel will not analyze this element of the Policy.
For the reasons set forth above, the Panel will not analyze this element of the Policy.
Given the common request of the Parties, it is Ordered that the <officedepotsurveyus.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Richard Hill, Panelist
Dated: December 14, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page