Target Brands, Inc. v. mayoks moro
Claim Number: FA2303002035555
Complainant is Target Brands, Inc. ("Complainant"), United States, represented by Steven M. Levy of FairWinds Partners LLC, United States. Respondent is mayoks moro ("Respondent"), United States.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <targetcorp.us>, registered with NameCheap, 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.
David E. Sorkin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on March 13, 2023; Forum received payment on March 13, 2023.
On March 14, 2023, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by email to Forum that the <targetcorp.us> domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameCheap, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameCheap, Inc. registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with the U.S. Department of Commerce's usTLD Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy").
On March 16, 2023, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 5, 2023 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via email to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@targetcorp.us. Also on March 16, 2023, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the email 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 April 11, 2023, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed David E. Sorkin 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 to the usTLD Dispute Resolution Policy ("Rules"). Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the usTLD Policy, usTLD 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 operates retail department stores and provides related products and services. Complainant has used the TARGET mark in connection with this business since 1962. Complainant has approximately 1,750 stores in the United States and offices in many other countries; it reported revenues of over $106 billion in 2021. Complainant owns longstanding United States trademark registrations for TARGET in both standard character and design form, and asserts that the mark is famous worldwide.
Respondent registered the disputed domain name <targetcorp.us> in July 2022. Complainant states that the domain name resolves to a page composed of pay-per-click links to competitors of Complainant. (The Panel was unable to confirm this statement. Based on the partial URL that is visible in the exhibit provided by Complainant, it appears that the links may have been generated only after the user entered a query that included the name of a competitor.) Complainant alleges that the domain name has been used in email messages in support of a fraudulent phishing scheme aimed at potential job applicants, and provides documentary evidence to substantiate that allegation. Complainant states that Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name, has no affiliation with Complainant, and is not licensed or otherwise authorized to use Complainant's mark.
Complainant contends on the above grounds that the disputed domain name <targetcorp.us> is confusingly similar to its TARGET mark; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used 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 or is being used in bad faith.
Given the similarity between the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy ("UDRP") and the usTLD Policy, the Panel will draw upon UDRP principles as applicable in rendering its decision.
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 Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, § 4.3 (3d ed. 2017), available at http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (dismissing complaint where complainant failed to "produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations").
The disputed domain name <targetcorp.us> incorporates Complainant's registered TARGET trademark, adding the generic term "corp" and the ".us" top-level domain. These additions do not substantially diminish the similarity between the domain name and Complainant's mark. See, e.g., Micro Motion, Inc. v. Manfred Schneider / Pactron LLC, FA 1449641 (Forum Aug. 2, 2012) (finding <micromotioncorp.us> confusingly similar to MICRO MOTION); Target Brands, Inc. v. N/A / Sheilas Croggins, FA 1419975 (Forum Feb. 1, 2012) (finding <onlinetargetcorp.com> confusingly similar to TARGET). The Panel considers the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights.
Under the Policy, the Complainant must first make a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and then the burden shifts to the Respondent to come forward with concrete evidence of such rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Productions, Inc. v. Entertainment Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006).
The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's registered mark without authorization, and it is being used to impersonate Complainant in connection with a fraudulent phishing scheme. Such use does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests under the Policy. See, e.g., Baker & Hostetler LLP v. Rafel Benitez, FA
2001865 (Forum Aug. 1, 2022) (finding lack of rights or interests in similar circumstances); GECINA v. VYBES GOD / MedAdvisor, FA 1971512 (Forum Dec. 2, 2021) (same); Oracle International Corp. v. Linda Brooks, FA 1686338 (Forum Sept. 5, 2019) (same).
Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name, and Respondent has failed to come forward with any evidence of such rights or interests. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has sustained its burden of proving that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
Finally, Complainant must show that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Under paragraph 4(b)(iii) of the Policy, bad faith may be shown by evidence that Respondent registered the disputed domain name "primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor." Under paragraph 4(b)(iv), bad faith may be shown by evidence that "by using the domain name, [Respondent] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [Respondent's] web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [Respondent's] web site or location or of a product or service on [Respondent's] web site or location."
The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's registered mark without authorization, and it is being used to impersonate Complainant in connection with a fraudulent phishing scheme. Such conduct is indicative of bad faith registration and use under the Policy. See, e.g., Baker & Hostetler LLP v. Rafel Benitez, supra (finding bad faith registration and use in similar circumstances); GECINA v. VYBES GOD / MedAdvisor, supra (same); Oracle International Corp. v. Linda Brooks, supra (same). The Panel so finds.
Having considered the three elements required under the usTLD Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <targetcorp.us> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
David E. Sorkin, Panelist
Dated: April 11, 2023
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page