Office Depot, LLC and The Office Club, Inc. v. Liu Ying Jun
Claim Number: FA2302002030748
Complainant is Office Depot, LLC and The Office Club, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Joshua M. Dalton of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, US. Respondent is Liu Ying Jun (“Respondent”), CN.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <officedepotofficedepot.com>, registered with DNSPod, 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 February 6, 2023; Forum received payment on February 6, 2023.
On February 10, 2023, DNSPod, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <officedepotofficedepot.com> domain name is registered with DNSPod, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. DNSPod, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the DNSPod, 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 February 13, 2023, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 6, 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@officedepotofficedepot.com. Also on February 13, 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 March 13, 2023, 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 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.
Preliminary Issues:
a) Multiple Complainants
The relevant rules governing multiple complainants are UDRP Rule 3(a) and the Forum’s Supplemental Rule 1(e). UDRP Rule 3(a) states, “Any person or entity may initiate an administrative proceeding by submitting a complaint.” The 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.”
Previous panels have interpreted the 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.
There are two Complainants in this matter: Office Depot, LLC and The Office Club, Inc. Complainants asserts that The Office Club, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Office Depot, LLC, which sufficiently establish a nexus between these corporate entities. Therefore, the Panel will refer to the named Complainants as “Complainant.”
b) Language of Proceeding
The Panel notes that the Registration Agreement is written in Chinese. Complainant alleges that because Respondent is conversant in English, the proceeding should be conducted in English. The Panel has the discretion under UDRP Rule 11(a) to determine the appropriate language of the proceedings taking into consideration the particular circumstances. See FilmNet Inc. v Onetz, FA 96196 (Forum Feb. 12, 2001 (finding it appropriate to conduct the proceeding in English under Rule 11, despite Korean being designated as the required language in the registration agreement because the respondent submitted a response in English after receiving the complaint in Korean and English). Complainant shows that Respondent’s website available at the disputed domain name uses English characters and words therein, suggesting that Respondent is conversant in the English language. Therefore, the Panel determines that this proceeding will be conducted in English.
A. Complainant
1. Respondent’s <officedepotofficedepot.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s OFFICE DEPOT mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <officedepotofficedepot.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and uses the <officedepotofficedepot.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent did not file a Response.
Complainant operates retail office supply stores and holds a registration for the OFFICE DEPOT mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 1,449,065, registered on July 21, 1987.)
Respondent registered the <officedepotofficedepot.com> domain name on January 3, 2023, and uses it to pass off as Complainant.
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 Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the OFFICE DEPOT mark through registration with the USPTO. See Nintendo of America Inc. v. lin amy, FA 1818485 (Forum Dec. 24, 2018) ("Complainant’s ownership 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 <officedepotofficedepot.com> domain name uses the OFFICE DEPOT mark twice and adds a gTLD. Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), adding a gTLD and duplicating a mark is insufficient to differentiate a domain name from a mark. See Microsoft Corporation v. Thong Tran Thanh, FA 1653187 (Forum Jan. 21, 2016) (determining that confusing similarity exists 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); see also F.R. Burger & Associates, Inc. v. shanshan lin, FA 1623319 (Forum July 9, 2015) (holding, “Respondent’s <frburger.com> domain name is identical to Complainant’s FRBURGER mark because it differs only by the domain name’s addition of the top-level domain name “.com.”) Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent’s <officedepotofficedepot.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s OFFICE DEPOT 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 has no rights or legitimate interests in the <officedepotofficedepot.com> domain name, as Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name. Complainant has not authorized or licensed Respondent to use its OFFICE DEPOT mark. The WHOIS information identifies Respondent as “Liu Ying Jun.” Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and thus has no rights under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See 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 Indeed, Inc. v. Ankit Bhardwaj / Recruiter, FA 1739470 (Forum Aug, 3, 2017) (”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.”)
Complainant argues that Respondent is not using the <officedepotofficedepot.com> domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use by using it to pass off as Complainant. Under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii), passing off as a complainant is not a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See 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).”) Complainant provides screenshots of the resolving website, which is nearly identical to Complainant’s website and uses Complainant’s logo and mark. 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)(i) and (iii).
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Complainant asserts that Respondent registered and uses the <officedepotofficedepot.com> domain name in bad faith by passing off as Complainant. Under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv), passing off as a complainant is evidence of bad faith registration and use. See Bittrex, Inc. v. Caroline Alves Maia, FA 1796113 (Forum Aug. 6, 2018) (finding the respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) because the respondent used the disputed domain name to present users with a website that was “virtually identical, with the same color scheme, the same layout and the same substantive content” and used the website to gain access to users’ cryptocurrency accounts). Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
Complainant argues that Respondent registered the <officedepotofficedepot.com> domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the disputed domain name since Respondent mimics Complainant’s website. The Panel agrees, noting the fame of the OFFICE DEPOT and finds bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See United States Postal Service v. Yongkun Wang, FA 1788170 (Forum July 11, 2018) (finding Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the USPS mark “given the widespread use of Complainant’s mark and the fact that Respondent registered four separate domain names all of which include Complainant’s USPS mark in its entirety”); see also Norgren GmbH v. Domain Admin / Private Registrations Aktien Gesellschaft, FA1501001599884 (Forum Feb. 25, 2014) (holding that the respondent had actual knowledge of the complainant and its rights in the mark, thus demonstrating bad faith registration under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii), where the respondent was using the disputed domain name to purposely host links related to the complainant’s field of operation).
The Panel finds that 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 <officedepotofficedepot.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist
Dated: March 15, 2023
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page