GLOCK, Inc. v. Active User / Mike Driz / Legend Tech Service / Bryan mystery / online business org / AMADA Cletus / Dalton zechenko / Enama Rachael Edena / Gregory Warren / 150 / ngonganang clinton / kaws art / Kanjoh Denise / Aveito / Mark Morgan / ALLTRANSGLOBACOURIER / Von Bil / Enama Rachael Edena / Dustin Dunn / POP
Claim Number: FA2301002027941
Complainant is GLOCK, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Gavin M. Strube of Renzulli Law Firm, LLP, New York. Respondent is Active User / Mike Driz / Legend Tech Service / Bryan mystery / online business org / AMADA Cletus / Dalton zechenko / Enama Rachael Edena / Gregory Warren / 150 / ngonganang clinton / kaws art / Kanjoh Denise / Aveito / Mark Morgan / ALLTRANSGLOBACOURIER / Von Bil / Enama Rachael Edena / Dustin Dunn / POP (“Respondent”), US.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <americanglockguns.com>, <buyglockhandgun.com>, <buyglockshop.com>, <ghostglock.store>, <glock19.org>, <glockautoswitch.com>, <glockonline.com>, <glockshop.org>, <newglock.com>, <orderglocks.com>, <primeglock.com>, <smartglocks.com>, <glockgunsshop.com>, registered with NameSilo, LLC; NameCheap, Inc.; Web Commerce Communications Limited dba WebNic.cc; Gransy, s.r.o.; GoDaddy.com, LLC; Launchpad.com Inc.; Shinjiru Technology Sdn Bhd.
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.
The Honorable Neil Anthony Brown KC as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on January 17, 2023; Forum received payment on January 17, 2023.
On January 18, 2023; January 19, 2023; January 20, 2023, NameSilo, LLC; NameCheap, Inc.; Web Commerce Communications Limited dba WebNic.cc; Gransy, s.r.o.; GoDaddy.com, LLC; Launchpad.com Inc.; Shinjiru Technology Sdn Bhd confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <americanglockguns.com>, <buyglockhandgun.com>, <buyglockshop.com>, <ghostglock.store>, <glock19.org>, <glockautoswitch.com>, <glockonline.com>, <glockshop.org>, <newglock.com>, <orderglocks.com>, <primeglock.com>, <smartglocks.com>, <glockgunsshop.com> domain names are registered with NameSilo, LLC; NameCheap, Inc.; Web Commerce Communications Limited dba WebNic.cc; Gransy, s.r.o.; GoDaddy.com, LLC; Launchpad.com Inc.; Shinjiru Technology Sdn Bhd and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. NameSilo, LLC; NameCheap, Inc.; Web Commerce Communications Limited dba WebNic.cc; Gransy, s.r.o.; GoDaddy.com, LLC; Launchpad.com Inc.; Shinjiru Technology Sdn Bhd has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameSilo, LLC; NameCheap, Inc.; Web Commerce Communications Limited dba WebNic.cc; Gransy, s.r.o.; GoDaddy.com, LLC; Launchpad.com Inc.; Shinjiru Technology Sdn Bhd 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 23, 2023, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 13, 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@americanglockguns.com, postmaster@buyglockhandgun.com, postmaster@buyglockshop.com, postmaster@ghostglock.store, postmaster@glock19.org, postmaster@glockautoswitch.com, postmaster@glockonline.com, postmaster@glockshop.org, postmaster@newglock.com, postmaster@orderglocks.com, postmaster@primeglock.com, postmaster@smartglocks.com, postmaster@glockgunsshop.com. Also on January 23, 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 20, 2023, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed The Honorable Neil Anthony Brown KC 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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
PRELIMINARY ISSUE: MULTIPLE RESPONDENTS
In the instant proceedings, Complainant has submitted that the entities which control the domain names at issue are effectively controlled by the same person and/or entity, which is operating under several aliases. Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”) provides that a “complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder.”
Complainant contends that all the Disputed Domain Names resolve to webpages displaying Complainant’s mark, are used to defraud Internet users, are created or registered between February 2021 and October 2022, are similarly constructed, most allow for common forms of payment, and some are registered with the same registrars.
Having regard to the evidence and all the circumstances, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are commonly owned/controlled by a single Respondent who is using multiple aliases, that the proceeding was properly instituted and that it may therefore go forward on that basis. For ease of reference, the respective respondents will be referred to collectively in this decision as Respondent.
A. Complainant
Complainant made the following contentions.
Complainant,
GLOCK, Inc. is in the firearm business. Complainant asserts rights in the GLOCK
mark based upon registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office
(“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. no. 1,691,390, registered June 9, 1992). See
Compl. Ex. C. Respondent’s <americanglockguns.com>,
<buyglockhandgun.com>, <buyglockshop.com>,
<ghostglock.store>, <glock19.org>, <glockautoswitch.com>,
<glockonline.com>, <glockshop.org>, <newglock.com>,
<orderglocks.com>, <primeglock.com>, <smartglocks.com>,
<glockgunsshop.com> (the Disputed Domain Names) are confusingly similar to Complainant’s GLOCK
trademark because they contain the mark in
its entirety and add the descriptive words “american”, “guns”, “buy”,
“handgun”, “shop”, “ghost”, “19”, “auto switch”, “online”, “new”, “order”,
“prime”, and “smart”, and the generic top-level domain names (“gTLD”) “.org”,
“.store”, and “.com”.
Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests
in the Disputed
Domain Names. Respondent is not licensed or
authorized to use Complainant’s GLOCK mark and is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Respondent
also does not use the disputed domain name for any bona fide offering of
goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather,
Respondent engages in a phishing scheme.
Respondent registered and uses the Disputed Domain Names in bad faith. Respondent creates a likelihood of confusion with Complainant by offering its products for commercial gain. Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain names for illegal activity. Respondent engages in a phishing scheme.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
1. Complainant is a United States company engaged in the manufacture of firearms.
2. Complainant has established its rights in the GLOCK mark through its registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 1,691,390, which was registered on June 9, 1992).
3. Respondent registered the disputed domain names on the following dates :
<smartglocks.com>:June 20, 2021,
<glockshop.org>: October 4, 2021,
<glockgunsshop.com>: October 4, 2022
<orderglocks.com>: August 27, 2021,
<newglock.com> :January 17, 2022,
<buyglockhandgun.com>: October 4, 2021,
<glockonline.com> : February 21, 2021,
<glockautoswitch.com>: June 14, 2022,
<glock19.org>: July 13, 2021,
<primeglock.com>: April 6, 2021
<glockautoswitch.com>:June 15, 2022
<ghostglock.store>: October 17, 2022,
<buyglockshop.com>: March 17, 2022,
<americanglockguns.com> : August 15, 2022.
( “the disputed domain names”).
4. Respondent does not use the disputed domain names for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, Respondent uses the domain names to engage in a phishing scheme.
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 first question that arises is whether Complainant has rights in a trademark or service mark on which it may rely. Complainant submits that it has rights in the GLOCK mark based upon its registration of the mark with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. no. 1,691,390, registered June 9, 1992). See Compl. Ex. C. Registration of a mark with the USPTO is considered a valid showing of rights under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Liberty Global Logistics, LLC v. damilola emmanuel / tovary services limited, FA 1738536 (Forum Aug. 4, 2017) (stating, “Registration of a mark with the USPTO sufficiently establishes the required rights in the mark for purposes of the Policy.”); see also Haas Automation, Inc. v. Jim Fraser, FA 1627211 (Forum Aug. 4, 2015) (finding that Complainant’s USPTO registrations for the HAAS mark sufficiently demonstrate its rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)). Since Complainant has provided evidence of registration of the GLOCK mark with the USPTO, the Panel finds that Complainant has established its rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
The next question that arises is whether the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s GLOCK mark. Complainant argues that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s GLOCK trademark because they contain the mark in its entirety and add the descriptive words “american”, “guns”, “buy”, “handgun”, “shop”, “ghost”, “19”, “auto switch”, “online”, “new”, “order”, “prime”, and “smart”, and the generic top-level domain names (“gTLD”) “.org”, “.store”, and “.com”. Adding or removing descriptive terms or a gTLD is insufficient to differentiate a disputed domain name from a complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See The Toronto-Dominion Bank v. George Whitehead, FA 1784412 (Forum June 11, 2018) (“[S]light differences between domain names and registered marks, such as the addition of words that describe the goods or services in connection with the mark and gTLDs, do not distinguish the domain name from the mark incorporated therein per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”). Therefore, the Panel finds the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s GLOCK mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant has thus made out the first of the three elements that it must establish.
It is now well established that Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), then 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”).
The Panel finds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case that arises from the following considerations:
(a) Respondent has chosen to take Complainant’s GLOCK mark and to use it in its domain names, adding the descriptive words “american”, “guns”, “buy”, “handgun”, “shop”, “ghost”, “19”, “auto switch”, “online”, “new”, “order”, “prime”, and “smart”, which do not negate the confusing similarity between the domain names and the trademark;
(b) Respondent registered each of the disputed domain names referred to above on the date corresponding to each of the respectively;
(c) Respondent does not use the disputed domain names for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, Respondent engages in a phishing scheme.
(d) Respondent has engaged in these activities without the consent or approval of Complainant;
(e) Complainant argues that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names because Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant’s GLOCK mark and is not commonly known by the disputed domain names. Where a response is lacking, WHOIS information may be used to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain names under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). 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)). Additionally, lack of authorization to use a complainant’s mark may indicate that the respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names. See Alaska Air Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines v. Song Bin, FA1408001574905 (Forum Sept. 17, 2014) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name as demonstrated by the WHOIS information and based on the fact that the complainant had not licensed or authorized the respondent to use its ALASKA AIRLINES mark). The WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the registrant as “Active User / Mike Driz / Legend Tech Service / Bryan mystery / online business org / AMADA Cletus / Dalton zechenko / Enama Rachael Edena / Gregory Warren / 150 / ngonganang clinton / kaws art / Kanjoh Denise / Aveito / Mark Morgan / ALLTRANSGLOBACOURIER / Von Bil / Enama Rachael Edena / Dustin Dunn / POP.” See Registrar Verification Email. Therefore, the Panel finds Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii);
(f) Complainant contends Respondent does not use the disputed domain names for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, Respondent engages in a phishing scheme. Use of a domain name that is confusingly similar to the mark of another in order to facilitate a phishing scheme cannot be described as either a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶4(c)(iii). See Virtu Financial Operating, LLC v. Lester Lomax, FA1409001580464 (Forum Nov. 14, 2014) (finding that the respondent had failed to provide a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) where the respondent was using the disputed domain name to phish for Internet users personal information by offering a fake job posting on the resolving website). Here, Complainant provides screenshots of the disputed domain names’ resolving webpages, showing offerings of Complainant’s or competing products for sale and sections to enter personal and financial information. See Compl. Ex. B & G. As the Panel agrees, it finds that Respondent does not provide a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶4(c)(iii).
All of these matters go to make out the prima facie case against Respondent.
As Respondent has not filed a formal Response or attempted by any other means to rebut the prima facie case against it, the Panel finds that Respondent does not have a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain names.
Complainant has thus made out the second of the three elements that it must establish.
It is clear that to establish bad faith for the purposes of the Policy, Complainant must show that the disputed domain names were registered in bad faith and have been used in bad faith. It is also clear that the criteria set out in Policy ¶ 4(b) for establishing bad faith are not exclusive, but that Complainants in UDRP proceedings may also rely on conduct that is bad faith within the generally accepted meaning of that expression.
Having regard to those principles, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names were registered and used in bad faith. That is so for the following reasons.
First, Complainant argues that Respondent creates a likelihood of confusion with Complainant by offering its products for commercial gain. A respondent violates Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark by using a domain name identical to the complainant’s mark to sell the complainant’s products. See Compaq Info. Techs. Group, L.P. v. Waterlooplein Ltd., FA 109718 (Forum May 29, 2002) (finding that the respondent’s use of the <compaq-broker.com> domain name to sell the complainant’s products “creates a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's COMPAQ mark as to the source, sponsorship, or affiliation of the website and constituted bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)”); see also Perot Sys. Corp. v. Perot.net, FA 95312 (Forum Aug. 29, 2000) (finding bad faith where the domain name in question is obviously connected with the complainant’s well-known marks, thus creating a likelihood of confusion strictly for commercial gain). Here, the Panel notes that Complainant provides screenshots of the disputed domain names’ resolving webpages, showing offerings of Complainant’s or competing products for sale and sections to enter personal and financial information. See Compl. Ex. B & G. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain names in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
Secondly, Complainant contends that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain names for an illegal activity. Use of a disputed domain name for illegal activities evidences bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Google Inc. v. Domain Admin, FA 1502001605239 (Forum Mar. 22, 2015) (finding that use of a disputed domain name to aid illegal activities under Complainant’s trademark suggests Respondent’s bad faith). Here, Complainant provides screenshots of Respondent’s offerings of illegal automatic conversions switches. See Compl. Ex. I. Thus, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain names in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Thirdly, Complainant submits that Respondent engages in a phishing scheme. A respondent’s use of a disputed domain name in furtherance of a ‘phishing’ scheme further establishes its bad faith registration and use of a disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Wells Fargo & Co. v. Maniac State, FA 608239 (Forum Jan. 19, 2006) (finding bad faith registration and use where the respondent was using the <wellsbankupdate.com> domain name in order to fraudulently acquire the personal and financial information of the complainant’s customers). Here, the Panel notes Complainant provides screenshots of the disputed domain names’ resolving webpages, showing offerings of Complainant’s or competing products for sale and sections to enter personal and financial information. See Compl. Ex. B & G. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain names in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Complainant has thus made out the third of the three elements that it must establish.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <americanglockguns.com>, <buyglockhandgun.com>, <buyglockshop.com>, <ghostglock.store>, <glock19.org>, <glockautoswitch.com>, <glockonline.com>, <glockshop.org>, <newglock.com>, <orderglocks.com>, <primeglock.com>, <smartglocks.com>, <glockgunsshop.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
The Honorable Neil Anthony Brown KC
Panelist
Dated: February 21, 2023
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page