Claim Number: FA2306002047070
Complainant is GLOCK, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Christopher Renzulli of Renzulli Law Firm, LLP, New York, USA. Respondent is Brandon Montegro / amira haaken / douala bonamoussadi / NOEL BALEMBA CABILLA / Lorrie Quayle / Blue Jack / frank morgan / cf / Saka Amkima / Lorrie Quayle (“Respondent”), Pennsylvania, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <onlineglock.shop>, <usaglocksgunshop.com>, <glockofficialshop.com>, <glocksofficialshop.com>, <glock.vip>, ,<us-glockstore.com>, <glockofficialshopcanada.com>, <glockswitch.com> and <purchaseglocks.com> (the “Domain Names”), registered with Eranet International Limited; GoDaddy.com, LLC; FastDomain Inc.; NICENIC INTERNATIONAL GROUP CO., LIMITED; NameSilo, LLC and PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com.
PANEL
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.
Alan L. Limbury, as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on June 1, 2023. Forum received payment on June 1, 2023.
On June 1, 2, 4 and 5, 2023, Eranet International Limited; GoDaddy.com, LLC; FastDomain Inc.; NICENIC INTERNATIONAL GROUP CO., LIMITED; NameSilo, LLC and PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the Domain Names are registered with them and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Eranet International Limited; GoDaddy.com, LLC; FastDomain Inc.; NICENIC INTERNATIONAL GROUP CO., LIMITED; NameSilo, LLC and PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com have verified that Respondent is bound by their registration agreements 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 June 6, 2023, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of June 26, 2023 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registrations as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@onlineglock.shop, postmaster@usaglocksgunshop.com, postmaster@glockofficialshop.com, postmaster@glocksofficialshop.com, postmaster@glock.vip, postmaster@us-glockstore.com, postmaster@glockofficialshopcanada.com, postmaster@glockswitch.com, postmaster@purchaseglocks.com. Also on June 6, 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 registrations as technical, administrative and billing contacts.
Having received no response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On July 6, 2023, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Alan L. Limbury 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
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 the Domain Names are effectively controlled by the same person and/or entity, which is operating under several aliases and false identities to perpetuate nearly identical scams across the Domain Names. All the Domain Names’ resolving webpages display Complainant’s GLOCK wordmark and logos in approximately the same position and location; all the home pages utilize a similar format, layout and appearance; most follow a similar naming format, using “shop” or “store” in the name; and all are used to defraud Internet users via the purported sale of Complainant’s products.
In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the above circumstances demonstrate sufficient commonality as between the domain names to satisfy the Panel that they are commonly owned or controlled by a single person who is using multiple aliases. Hence this decision refers to Brandon Montegro / amira haaken / douala bonamoussadi / NOEL BALEMBA CABILLA / Lorrie Quayle / Blue Jack / frank morgan / cf / Saka Amkima / Lorrie Quayle as “Respondent”.
A. Complainant
Complainant, GLOCK, Inc., was established in 1985 to market GLOCK pistols in the United States. Today, GLOCK pistols are the most popular pistol brand in the world. Complainant has rights in the GLOCK mark through registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”). The Domain Names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s GLOCK mark.
Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the Domain Names. Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Names, nor has Complainant authorized or licensed Respondent to use its mark in the Domain Names. Respondent does not use the Domain Names for any bona fide offering of goods or services, nor for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, but instead engages in a phishing scheme.
Respondent registered and is using the Domain Names in bad faith to redirect consumers to websites which purport to sell genuine GLOCK pistols, competitors’ firearms, and parts or accessories for firearms. Respondent accepts payment only with credit cards or through wire transfers or digital currency. Respondent takes payment from consumers and gathers their names and addresses but does not ship any products after collecting their information and money. At least one consumer has been defrauded by Respondent. Complainant received an email from an individual who was allegedly scammed out of $175 after attempting to purchase a product from the domain name <glock.vip> that was never shipped.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant has established all the elements entitling it to relief.
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”).
Complainant has shown that it has rights in the GLOCK mark through registrations of the mark with the USPTO (e.g. Reg. No. 1,691,390, registered on June 9, 1992). The Panel finds each of Respondent’s <onlineglock.shop>, <usaglocksgunshop.com>, <glockofficialshop.com>, <glocksofficialshop.com>, <glock.vip>, <us-glockstore.com>, <glockofficialshopcanada.com>, <glockswitch.com> and <purchaseglocks.com> Domain Names to be confusingly similar to Complainant’s GLOCK mark. Two of the Domain Names incorporate the plural form of Complainant’s GLOCK mark and they all incorporate the mark in its entirety. All but one add descriptive or geographic terms (“online”, “usa”, “gunshop”, “officialshop”, “us-”, “store”, “Canada”, “switch”, “purchase”) and all add an inconsequential gTLD, (“.com”, “.shop”, “.vip”), which may be ignored.
Complainant has established this element.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
(i) before any notice to Respondent of the dispute, the use by Respondent of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the Domain Names or names corresponding to the Domain Names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or
(ii) Respondent (as an individual, business or other organization) has been commonly known by the Domain Names, even if Respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
(iii) Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Names, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert customers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.
The Domain Names were registered on the following dates, each many years after Complainant has shown that its GLOCK mark had become famous:
- <glock.vip>: November 4, 2020.
- <purchaseglocks.com>: July 7, 2021.
- <us-glockstore.com>: October 24, 2021.
- <usaglocksgunshop.com>: November 29, 2021.
- <glockswitch.com>: June 27, 2022.
- <glockofficialshop.com>: September 8, 2022.
- <glocksofficialshop.com>: November 13, 2022.
- <onlineglock.shop>: December 16, 2022.
- <glockofficialshopcanada.com>: April 3, 2023.
All the Domain Names resolve to websites which purport to sell Complainant’s and competitor’s products while seeking payment through wire transfers or digital currency. Complainant has shown that a consumer has been defrauded by Respondent.
These circumstances, together with Complainant’s assertions, are sufficient to constitute a prima facie showing of absence of rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Names on the part of Respondent. The evidentiary burden therefore shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names. See Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014). Respondent has made no attempt to do so.
The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Names.
Complainant has established this element.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out four illustrative circumstances, which, though not exclusive, shall be evidence of the registration and use of the Domain Names in bad faith for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, including:
(iv) by using the Domain Names, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on its website or location.
The circumstances set out above in relation to the second element satisfy the Panel that Respondent was fully aware of Complainant’s famous GLOCK mark when Respondent registered the Domain Names and that Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s websites, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark as to the source of Respondent’s websites and of the goods promoted on those websites. This demonstrates registration and use in bad faith to attract users for commercial gain under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
Further, the Panel is satisfied that Respondent has registered and is using the Domain Names in bad faith for the purpose of swindling money from unsuspecting customers of Complainant.
Complainant has established this element.
DECISION
Complainant having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <onlineglock.shop>, <usaglocksgunshop.com>, <glockofficialshop.com>, <glocksofficialshop.com>, <glock.vip>, ,<us-glockstore.com>, <glockofficialshopcanada.com>, <glockswitch.com>, and <purchaseglocks.com> Domain Names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Alan L. Limbury, Panelist
Dated: June 9, 2023
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page