Target Brands, Inc. v. Andrew Huang
Claim Number: FA2305002043069
Complainant is Target Brands, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Jeanette Eriksson of FairWinds Partners LLC, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is Andrew Huang (“Respondent”), New York, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <targetdealsdaily.com>, (‘the Domain Name’) registered with Google LLC.
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.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on May 3, 2023; Forum received payment on May 3, 2023.
On May 4, 2023, Google LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <targetdealsdaily.com> Domain Name is registered with Google LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Google LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Google LLC 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 May 4, 2023, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of May 24, 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@targetdealsdaily.com. Also on May 4, 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 May 25, 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.
Complainant requests that the Domain Name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
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 1962.
The Domain Name registered in 2023 is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark adding only generic term ‘deals daily’ 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 confusing internet users for commercial gain and disrupting the Complainant’s business.
The Respondent has been the subject of another adverse UDRP decision in 2022 in similar circumstances involving the Complainant’s TARGET mark in relation to the domain name targetdealstoday.com
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
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 1962.
The Domain Name registered in 2023 connects to a site that purports to offer competing services using the Complainant’s logo and TARGET mark in its masthead.
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 Domain Name in this Complaint registered in 2023 combines the Complainant’s TARGET mark (registered, inter alia, in the USA for retail services with first use in commerce recorded as 1962) the generic term ‘deals daily’ 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).). As such the Panel agrees that the addition of the generic term ‘deals daily’ and the gTLD ‘.com’ do not prevent confusing similarity between the Complainant’s mark and the Domain Name.
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 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 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 TARGET 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 TARGET 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).
The Panel also notes the adverse decision against the Respondent in another case involving the Complainant’s mark before the Domain Name in this case was registered indicating a pattern of activity. See Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation v. oranges arecool XD / orangesarecool.com, FA1405001558045 (Forum July 10, 2014) (finding that the respondent’s registration of more than one domain name involving the Complainant’s mark and prior adverse UDRP history was evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii)).
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)(ii), (iii) and (iv).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <targetdealsdaily.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Dawn Osborne, Panelist
Dated: May 25, 2023
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page