Illinois Tool Works Inc. v. Jisheng Song
Claim Number: FA2301002027924
Complainant is Illinois Tool Works Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Bradley L. Cohn of Pattishall, McAuliffe, Newbury, Hilliard & Geraldson LLP, Illinois, USA. Respondent is Jisheng Song (“Respondent”), International.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <permatexshop.com>, registered with Name.com, Inc..
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.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on January 17, 2023; Forum received payment on January 17, 2023.
On January 17, 2023, Name.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <permatexshop.com> domain name is registered with Name.com, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Name.com, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Name.com, 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 January 19, 2023, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 8, 2023 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@permatexshop.com. Also on January 19, 2023, 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 February 13, 2023, 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.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant contends as follows:
Complainant, Illinois Tool Works Inc., offers industrial adhesives, cleaning preparations, lubricants, and sealants.
Complainant asserts rights in the PERMATEX mark based upon registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) and other trademark authorities internationally.
The <permatexshop.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s PERMATEX mark because it incorporates the Complainant’s entire mark together with the generic word “shop” and the generic top level domain (“gTLD”) “.com”.
Complainant asserts Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the at-issue domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the <permatexshop.com> domain name, nor has Complainant authorized, licensed, or otherwise permitted Respondent to use the mark.
Respondent registered and uses the <permatexshop.com> domain name in bad faith. Respondent is taking advantage of the goodwill associated with Complainant’s mark. Respondent is passing off as Complainant. Respondent is offering unauthorized goods.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant has rights in the PERMATEX 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 PERMATEX trademark.
Respondent uses the <permatexshop.com> domain name to impersonate Complainant and to attract internet users to its own competing website where it sells counterfeit or unauthorized PERMATEX products.
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”).
The at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights.
Complainant demonstrates rights in the PERMATEX mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through its registration of such mark with the USPTO, as well as through its other bona fide trademark registrations worldwide. See Teleflex Incorporated v. Leisa Idalski, FA 1794131 (Forum July 31, 2018) (“Registration of a mark with governmental trademark agencies is sufficient to establish rights in that mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”).
Respondent’s <permatexshop.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s PERMATEX mark. The domain name contains Complainant’s entire trademark followed by the suggestive term “shop” and with all followed by the “.com” top-level domain name. The differences between the at-issue <permatexshop.com> domain name and Complainant’s PERMATEX mark are insufficient to distinguish the domain name from Complainant’s mark for the purposes of the Policy. Therefore, the Panel finds that pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) that Respondent’s <permatexshop.com>domain name is confusingly similar to PERMATEX. See Microsoft Corporation v. Thong Tran Thanh, FA 1653187 (Forum Jan. 21, 2016) (determining that confusing similarity exist where [a disputed domain name] contains Complainant’s entire mark and differs only by the addition of a generic or descriptive phrase and top-level domain, the differences between the domain name and its contained trademark are insufficient to differentiate one from the other for the purposes of the Policy.).
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, absent evidence of Policy ¶4(c) circumstances Complainant’s prima facie showing acts conclusively.
Respondent lacks both rights and legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue 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 interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. See Charter Communications Holding Company, LLC v. Taha Shaikh / Tskdesigners, FA 1814475 (Forum Nov. 25, 2018) (finding no rights or legitimate interests in <spectrumfeature.com> because complainant never gave respondent permission to use the mark in any manner and “Panels may use these assertions as evidence that no rights or legitimate interests exist in a disputed domain name.”).
The WHOIS information for <permatexshop.com> ultimately indicates that “Jisheng Song” is the domain name’s registrant and there is nothing in the record before the Panel that tends to prove that Respondent is known by the <permatexshop.com> domain name. As such, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name 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).
Respondent uses the confusingly similar <permatexshop.com>domain name to address a website that replicas Complainant’s own website and there offers unauthorized or counterfeit versions of Complainant’s PERMATEX products. Respondent’s use of <permatexshop.com> to attempt to pass itself off as Complainant in this manner is not indicative of a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor of a non-commercial or fair use under Policy ¶4(c)(iii). See Ripple Labs Inc. v. Jessie McKoy / Ripple Reserve Fund, FA 1790949 (Forum July 9, 2018) (finding the respondent did not use the domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services per Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) where the website resolving from the disputed domain name featured the complainant’s mark and various photographs related to the complainant’s business); see also, Wolverine World Wide, Inc. v. Fergus Knox, FA 1627751 (Forum Aug. 19, 2015) (finding no bona fide offering of goods or legitimate noncommercial or fair use existed where Respondent used the resolving website to sell products branded with Complainant’s MERRELL mark, and were either counterfeit products or legitimate products of Complainant being resold without authorization).
Given the forgoing, Complainant satisfies its initial burden under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) and demonstrates Respondent’s lack of rights and lack of legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name.
Respondent’s <permatexshop.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 and its referenced website ‑which mimics Complainant’s genuine website‑ to pass itself off as Complainant and trick internet users into believing that the domain name and website are sponsored by Complainant. There, Respondent promotes and offers unauthorized or counterfeit PERMATEX products for sale. Respondent’s use of the confusingly similar domain name to attract internet users and capitalize on their confusion by directing such users to a website offering unauthorized or counterfeit goods demonstrates Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the domain name under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Artistic Pursuit LLC v. calcuttawebdevelopers.com, FA 894477 (Forum Mar. 8, 2007) (finding that the respondent’s registration and use of the at-issue domain name, which displayed a website virtually identical to the complainant’s website, constituted bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)); 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 PERMATEX mark when it registered <permatexshop.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 notoriety of Complainant’s trademark; from Respondent’s incorporation of the suggestive term “shop” into the at-issue domain name; and from Respondent’s use of the <permatexshop.com> to pose as Complainant and offer products competing with Complainant as discussed elsewhere herein. Registering and using a confusingly similar domain name with knowledge of Complainant’s rights in such domain name further shows Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of <permatexshop.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).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <permatexshop.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist
Dated: February 13, 2023
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page