Home Depot Product Authority, LLC v. Chris Penn
Claim Number: FA2212002022486
Complainant is Home Depot Product Authority, LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Richard J. Groos of King & Spalding LLP, Texas, USA. Respondent is Chris Penn (“Respondent”), Ohio, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <ecohomedepot.com> (“Domain Name”), registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.
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.
Nicholas J.T. Smith as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on December 1, 2022; Forum received payment on December 1, 2022.
On December 2, 2022, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <ecohomedepot.com> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, 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 December 6, 2022, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of December 27, 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@ecohomedepot.com. Also on December 6, 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 formal response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On December 28, 2022, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Nicholas J.T. Smith 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, Home Depot Product Authority, LLC is the world’s largest home improvement retailer. Complainant asserts rights in the HOME DEPOT mark based upon registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 2,825,232, registered March 23, 2004). Respondent’s <ecohomedepot.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark as it incorporates the mark in its entirety, removes the space, adds the generic term “eco” and the “.com” the generic top-level-domain (“gTLD”).
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <ecohomedepot.com> domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name, nor has Complainant authorized, licensed, or otherwise permitted Respondent to use the HOME DEPOT mark. Respondent also does not use the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, Respondent, from the website accessible at the Domain Name (“Respondent’s Website”) offered goods for sale that are in direct competition with Complainant’s offerings and now offers the Domain Name for sale.
Respondent registered and uses the <ecohomedepot.com> domain name in bad faith. Respondent offers the Domain Name for sale. Respondent previously used the Domain Name in bad faith by resolving to the Respondent’s Website where it offered competing products. Respondent failed to respond to Complainant’s cease and desist letter. Furthermore, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the HOME DEPOT mark prior to registering the Domain Name, evidenced by Respondent’s use of the Domain Name to offer goods in direct competition with Complainant.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a formal Response in this proceeding. On December 7, 2022 Respondent sent an informal e-mailed response to Forum, the contents of which were as follows:
“Not sure why we are receiving this. We received a cease and desist letter from Home Depot and promptly disbanded from Ecohomedepot.com. Did not intentionally do anything wrong. We are now mrecohome.
Thank you”
Complainant holds trademark rights for the HOME DEPOT mark. The Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s HOME DEPOT mark. Complainant has established that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name and that Respondent registered and has used the Domain Name 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 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 asserts rights in the HOME DEPOT mark through its registration of the mark with the USPTO (e.g., 2,825,232, registered March 23, 2004). Registration with the USPTO can sufficiently establish rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Thermo Electron Corp. v. Xu, FA 713851 (Forum July 12, 2006) (finding that the complainants had established rights in marks where the marks were registered with a national trademark authority).
The Panel finds that the <ecohomedepot.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s HOME DEPOT mark because it wholly incorporates Complainant’s HOME DEPOT mark and adds the generic combining form “eco” and the generic top-level domain (gTLD) “.com.” Adding a generic term and a gTLD to a mark fails to sufficiently distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See MTD Products Inc v J Randall Shank, FA 1783050 (Forum June 27, 2018) (“The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark as it wholly incorporates the CUB CADET mark before appending the generic terms ‘genuine’ and ‘parts’ as well as the ‘.com’ gTLD.”).
The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant alleges that Respondent holds no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. In order for Complainant to succeed under this element, it must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the Domain Name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006) and AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Forum Sept. 25, 2006) (“Complainant must first make a prima facie showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names, which burden is light. If Complainant satisfies its burden, then the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain names.”). The Panel holds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case.
Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name as Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name, nor has Complainant authorized Respondent to use the HOME DEPOT mark. Respondent has no relationship, affiliation, connection, endorsement or association with Complainant. WHOIS information can help support a finding that a respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, especially where a privacy service has been engaged. 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)); see also Kohler Co. v. Privacy Service, FA1505001621573 (Forum July 2, 2015) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) where “Privacy Service” was listed as the registrant of the disputed domain name). The WHOIS lists “Chris Penn” as registrant of record. Coupled with Complainant’s unrebutted assertions as to absence of any affiliation or authorization between the parties, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name in accordance with Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
The Domain Name redirected to the Respondent’s Website where Respondent purported to offers building products in direct competition with Complainant by reference to Complainant’s HOME DEPOT mark. The use of a confusingly similar domain name to redirect to a competing website does not amount to a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the name under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See General Motors LLC v. MIKE LEE, FA 1659965 (Forum Mar. 10, 2016) (finding that “use of a domain to sell products and/or services that compete directly with a complainant’s business does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”). See also Dell Inc. v. Devesh Tyagi, FA 1785301 (Forum June 2, 2018) (“Respondent replicates Complainant’s website and displays Complainant’s products. The Panel finds that this use is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) & (iii).”). Nor is the present use of the Domain Name, resolving to a parking page maintained by the Registrar indicating that the Domain Name may be for sale, a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the name under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See AOL Inc. v. YourJungle Privacy Protection Service aka Whois Agent, FA1312001533324 (Forum Jan. 17, 2014) (“Respondent has offered the <aoljobsweek.com> domain name for sale to the general public, which demonstrates that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).”).
The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
The Panel finds on the balance of probabilities that, at the time Respondent registered the Domain Name, April 10, 2021, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s HOME DEPOT mark which had been in use for almost 40 years at the time. Furthermore, there is no obvious explanation, nor has one been provided, for an entity to register a domain name that wholly incorporates the HOME DEPOT mark and use it to redirect visitors to a website selling products that directly compete with products sold by Complainant other than to take advantage of Complainant’s reputation in the HOME DEPOT Mark. In the absence of rights or legitimate interests of its own this demonstrates registration in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
The Panel finds that Respondent registered and used the Domain Name in bad faith as Respondent used the Domain Name to redirect Internet users to Respondent’s own website where Respondent, using the HOME DEPOT Mark, offered a variety of building products in direct competition with Complainant. Using a confusingly similar domain name to divert Internet users to a respondent’s competing website can show bad faith registration and use per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See ZIH Corp. v. ou yang lin q, FA1761403 (Forum Dec. 29, 2017) (finding bad faith where the respondent used the infringing domain name to disrupt the complainant’s business by diverting Internet users from the complainant’s website to the respondent’s website where it offered competing printer products). Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and used the Domain Name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).
The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied 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 <ecohomedepot.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Nicholas J.T. Smith, Panelist
Dated: December 29, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page