Target Brands, Inc. v. Sirmaxis Admin
Claim Number: FA2306002047869
Complainant is Target Brands, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Jeanette Eriksson of FairWinds Partners LLC, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is Sirmaxis Admin (“Respondent”), California, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <target.ws> (“Domain Name”), registered with Domain Cost Club.
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.
Nicholas J.T. Smith as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on June 7, 2023; Forum received payment on June 7, 2023.
On June 9, 2023, Domain Cost Club confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <target.ws> domain name is registered with Domain Cost Club and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Domain Cost Club has verified that Respondent is bound by the Domain Cost Club 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 June 12, 2023, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 3, 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@target.ws. Also on June 12, 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 formal response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On July 11, 2023, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Nicholas J.T. Smith 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
Complainant is a well-known international retailer, identified predominantly using the TARGET mark and the red Bullseye device. Complainant asserts rights in the TARGET mark based upon registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g. Reg. No. 818,410, registered Nov. 8, 1966). Respondent’s <target.ws> domain name is identical to Complainant’s mark as it wholly incorporates the mark and adds the “.ws” country-code top-level-domain (“ccTLD”).
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <target.ws> domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Complainant authorized, licensed, or otherwise permitted Respondent to use the mark. Respondent also does not use the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, Respondent has used the Domain Name for a number of illegitimate purposes. Respondent initially redirected users to a website (“Respondent’s Website”) where through the reproduction of the TARGET Mark and Bullseye device it passed itself off as Complainant to offer competing services. Following a letter of demand from Complainant, Respondent changed its use so that visitors were redirected to websites that either hosted pay-per-click links or encouraged the download of malware.
Respondent registered and uses the <target.ws> domain name in bad faith. Respondent passes off as Complainant. Respondent hosts pay-per-click links and malware on the Domain Name. Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the TARGET mark prior to registration of the Domain Name as the Respondent’s Website passed off as an official website of Complainant.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a formal Response in this proceeding. On June 22, 2023 Respondent sent the following e-mail to Forum:
“Yes i willing to give up rhe target.ws but only if could share with them my company website ŵww.jcoholdings.llc and have the person of contact look at the first video....”
Complainant holds trademark rights for the TARGET mark. The Domain Name is identical to Complainant’s TARGET mark. Complainant has established that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the use of the Domain Name and that Respondent registered and has used the Domain Name 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 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 rights in the TARGET mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through its registration of the mark with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 818,410, registered Nov. 8, 1966). Registration with the USPTO can sufficiently establish rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Thermo Electron Corp. v. Xu, FA 713851 (Forum July 12, 2006) (finding that the complainants had established rights in marks where the marks were registered with a national trademark authority).
The Panel finds that the <target.ws> domain name is identical to the TARGET mark as it consists of the TARGET mark and adds the “.ws” ccTLD. Adding a ccTLD to a wholly incorporated trademark does not negate confusing similarity between a domain name and a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Dell Inc. v. Protection of Private Person / Privacy Protection, FA 1681432 (Forum Aug. 1, 2016) (“A TLD (whether a gTLD, sTLD or ccTLD) is disregarded under a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis because domain name syntax requires TLDs.”).
The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant alleges that Respondent holds no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. In order for Complainant to succeed under this element, it must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the Domain Name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006) and AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Forum Sept. 25, 2006) (“Complainant must first make a prima facie showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names, which burden is light. If Complainant satisfies its burden, then the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain names.”). The Panel holds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case.
Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name as Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name, nor has Complainant authorized Respondent to use the TARGET mark. Respondent has no relationship, affiliation, connection, endorsement or association with Complainant. WHOIS information can help support a finding that a respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, especially where a privacy service has been engaged. See State 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 Kohler Co. v. Privacy Service, FA1505001621573 (Forum July 2, 2015) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) where “Privacy Service” was listed as the registrant of the disputed domain name). The WHOIS lists “Sirmaxis Admin” as registrant of record. Coupled with Complainant’s unrebutted assertions as to absence of any affiliation or authorization between the parties, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name in accordance with Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
The Domain Name is presently inactive, but it initially resolved to the Respondent’s Website that passed off as an official website of the Complainant (through the reproduction of Complainant’s TARGET mark and Bullseye device) for the purpose of offering online retail services under the TARGET mark in direct competition with Complainant’s retail services. The use of a confusingly similar domain name to resolve to a webpage that offers goods or services that compete with a complainant does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use; indeed it provides a false impression that the Respondent is affiliated with or authorized by Complainant. See Upwork Global Inc. v. Shoaib Malik, FA 1654759 (Forum February 3, 2016) (finding that Complainant provides freelance talent services, and that Respondent competes with Complainant by promoting freelance talent services through the disputed domain’s resolving webpage, which is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor is it a legitimate noncommercial or fair use). See also General Motors LLC v. MIKE LEE, FA 1659965 (Forum Mar. 10, 2016) (finding that “use of a domain to sell products and/or services that compete directly with a complainant’s business does not constitute 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).”).
Following the receipt of the letter of demand, visitors to the Domain Name were redirected to one of 2 options namely a) a website that encourages the visitor to download malware, or b) a parking page featuring pay-per-click advertisements, none of which have any connection with any descriptive meaning of the Domain Name. Absent any further explanation, none having been provided, neither of these uses are a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Coachella Music Festival, LLC v. Carolina Rodrigues / Fundacion Comercio Electronico, FA 1785199 (Forum June 5, 2018) (“Respondent uses the <coechella.com> domain name to direct internet users to a website which is used to attempt to install malware on visiting devices. Using the domain name in this manner is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a non-commercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”); See Danbyg Ejendomme A/S v. lb Hansen / guerciotti, FA1504001613867 (Forum June 2, 2015) (finding that the respondent had failed to provide a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name where the disputed domain name resolved to a website that offered both competing hyperlinks and hyperlinks unrelated to the complainant’s business).
The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
The Panel finds on the balance of probabilities that, at the date of registration of the Domain Name, May 22, 2023, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s TARGET mark as the Respondent’s Website made direct reference to Complainant and its services. In the absence of rights or legitimate interests of its own this demonstrates registration in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
The Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the Domain Name in bad faith to create confusion with Complainant’s TARGET Mark for commercial gain by using the confusingly similar Domain Name to resolve to a website offering retail services in a manner that misleads consumers into thinking that Respondent is in some way connected to the Complainant. Using a confusingly similar domain name to trade upon the goodwill of a complainant can evince bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Citadel LLC and its related entity, KCG IP Holdings, LLC v. Joel Lespinasse / Radius Group, FA1409001579141 (Forum Oct. 15, 2014) (“Here, the Panel finds evidence of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) bad faith as Respondent has used the confusingly similar domain name to promote its own financial management and consulting services in competition with Complainant.”).
In addition to the above the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the Domain Name in bad faith as Respondent uses or has used the Domain Name to deceive Internet users into installing malicious software on their computers. Use of a disputed domain name to impersonate a complainant in furtherance of a scheme to encourage malware is evidence of bad faith use per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Asbury Communities, Inc. v. Tiffany Hedges, FA 1785054 (Forum June 18, 2018) (“The Panel here finds that Respondent [installation of malware] further support the conclusion that Respondent registered and used the <asburymethodistvillage.com> domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)”); see also Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Timothy Mays aka Linda Haley aka Edith Barberdi, FA1504001617061 (Forum June 9, 2015) (“In addition, Respondent’s undenied use of the websites resolving from the contested domain names to distribute malware and other malicious downloads further illustrates its bad faith in the registration and use of those domain names.”).
Finally, the Panel finds that the use of the Domain Name for pay-per-click advertising was use of the Domain Name in bad faith. Use of a confusingly similar domain name to redirect Internet users to a website containing advertisements and links to third party websites for commercial gain is indicative of bad faith registration and use per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See 3M Company v. Nguyen Hoang Son / Bussiness and Marketing, FA1408001575815 (Forum Sept. 18, 2014) (finding that the respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to host sponsored advertisements for Amazon, through which the respondent presumably profited, indicated that the respondent had used the disputed domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the Domain Name in bad faith pursuant to 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 <target.ws> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Nicholas J.T. Smith, Panelist
Dated: July 11, 2023
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page