DECISION

 

Target Brands, Inc. v. Andrew Liu

Claim Number: FA2302002032996

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Target Brands, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Katlyn M. Moseley of Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, USA.  Respondent is Andrew Liu (“Respondent”), USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <targetdealstoday.com>, (‘the Domain Name’) registered with FastDomain Inc..

 

PANEL

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.

 

Dawn Osborne as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 22, 2023; Forum received payment on February 22, 2023.

 

On February 23, 2023, FastDomain Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <targetdealstoday.com> Domain Name is registered with FastDomain Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name.  FastDomain Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the FastDomain 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 23, 2023, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 15, 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@targetdealstoday.com.  Also on February 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 March 22, 2023 pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Dawn Osborne 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.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the Domain Name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A.   Complainant

 

The Complainant is the owner of the trade mark TARGET registered, inter alia, in the USA for retail services with first use in commerce recorded as 1965.

 

The Domain Name registered in 2022 is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark adding only generic term ‘deals today’ and a gTLD which do not prevent such confusing similarity.

 

Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name and is not authorised by the Complainant.

 

To pass itself off as Complainant, Respondent’s web site connected with the Domain Name purports to offer competing services using the Complainant’s logo and TARGET mark in its masthead. Since Internet users will be duped into believing the Respondent’s site is connected with the Complainant this is not a bona fide offering of services or legitimate non commercial fair use.  It is registration and use in bad faith diverting internet users for commercial gain and disrupting the Complainant’s business.

 

B. Respondent

 

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

The Complainant is the owner of the trade mark TARGET registered, inter alia, in the USA for retail services with first use in commerce recorded as 1965.

 

The Domain Name registered in 2022 connects to a site that purports to offer competing services using the Complainant’s logo and TARGET mark in its masthead.

 

DISCUSSION

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”).

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

 

The Domain Name in this Complaint combines the Complainant’s TARGET mark (registered, inter alia, in the USA for retail services with first use in commerce recorded as 1965) the generic term ‘deals today’ and the gTLD .com.

 

The addition of a generic term and a gTLD does not negate confusing similarity between a domain name and a trade mark contained within it. See Wiluna Holdings LLC v Edna Sherman, FA 1652781 (Forum Jan 22, 2016)(Finding the addition of a generic term and gTLD insufficient to distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark under Policy 4 (a) (i).)

 

Accordingly, the  Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a mark in which the Complainant has rights for the purpose of the Policy.

 

 Rights or Legitimate Interests

 

The Complainant has not authorised the use of its mark. There is no evidence  to suggest the Respondent is, in fact, commonly known by the Domain Name.  See Alaska Air Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines v. Song Bin, FA1408001574905 (Forum September 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 use of the web site is commercial so is not legitimate non commercial fair use.

 

The web site attached to the Domain Name purports to offer competing services to the Complainant and uses the Complainant's mark and the Complainant’s logo  in its masthead. The Panel finds this use is confusing. As such it cannot amount to the bona fide offering of goods and services. (See Am. Intl Group Inc v Benjamin FA 944242 (Forum May 11, 2007) finding that the Respondent's use of a confusingly similar domain name to compete with the Complainant's business did not constitute a bona fide use of goods and services.) see also Mortgage Research Center LLC v. Miranda, FA 993017 (Forum July 9, 2007) (“Because [the] respondent in this case is also attempting to pass itself off as [the] complainant, presumably for financial gain, the Panel finds the respondent is not using the <mortgageresearchcenter.org> domain name for 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).”). 

 

The Respondent has not answered this Complaint or offered any explanation or evidence to rebut the prima facie case evidenced by the Complainant herein.

 

As such the Panelist finds that the Respondent does not have rights or a legitimate interest in the Domain Name and that the Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

 

In the opinion of the panelist the use made of the Domain Name in relation to the Respondent’s site is confusing and disruptive in that visitors to the site might reasonably believe it is connected to or approved by the Complainant as it purports to offer competing services to the Complainant using the Complainant’s mark and the Complainant’s logo in its masthead. The use of the Complainant’s logo shows the Respondent has knowledge of the Complainant, its rights, business and services.

 

Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain Internet users to his website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trade mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the web site and services offered on it likely to disrupt the business of the Complainant. (See Asbury Auto Group Inc v Tex. Int'l Prop Assocs FA 958542 (Forum May 29, 2007) finding that the respondent's use of the disputed domain name to compete with the complainant's business would likely lead to confusion amongst Internet users as to the sponsorship or affiliation of a competing business and was therefore evidence of bad faith and use).

 

As such, the Panelist believes that the Complainant has made out its case that the Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith and has satisfied the third limb of the Policy under para 4(b)(iii) and (iv).

 

DECISION

Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <targetdealstoday.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

Dawn Osborne, Panelist

Dated:  March 22, 2023

 

 

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page