Phusion Projects, LLC v. Fernando Aycachi / Personal
Claim Number: FA2308002057116
Complainant is Phusion Projects, LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Robert Leighton of Goldberg Kohn Ltd., Illinois, USA. Respondent is Fernando Aycachi / Personal (“Respondent”), Peru.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <fourlokos.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.
The undersigned certifies that they have acted independently and impartially and to the best of their knowledge have no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Richard Hill as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on August 10, 2023; Forum received payment on August 10, 2023.
On August 14, 2023, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <fourlokos.com> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, 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 August 15, 2023, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 5, 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@fourlokos.com. Also on August 15, 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 September 6, 2023, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Richard Hill 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 states that it has been using the mark FOUR LOKO in the United States since as early as 2008 to market flavored alcoholic beverages and related clothing products. FOUR LOKO has been featured in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, USA Today, Time Magazine, Maxim, the BBC, CNN, CBS, NBC, Saturday Night Live, and music by Khaled, Birdman, Young Keezy, Bun B., Ricosuave, John Gates, and Young Trap. Complainant has over 100 employees in multiple countries and over $1 billion in worldwide revenue under the FOUR LOKO brand. Complainant asserts rights in the FOUR LOKO mark through its registration in the United States in 2013. The mark is famous.
Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its FOUR LOKO mark as it incorporates the mark in its entirety and merely adds the letter “s” and the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).
According to Complainant, Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and is not authorized or permitted to use Complainant’s FOUR LOKO mark. Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, the resolving website displays pay-per-click advertising hyperlinks to products that compete with those of Complainant.
Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. The resolving website displays advertising hyperlinks to competing products. Further, Respondent offers the disputed domain name for sale: the resolving website displays a link labeled “Get This Domain”. Respondent had actual or constructive knowledge of Complainant’s mark.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant owns the mark FOUR LOKO and uses it to market flavored alcoholic beverages and related clothing products.
Complainant’s rights in its mark date back to 2013.
The disputed domain name was registered in 2023.
The resolving website displays pay-per-click advertising hyperlinks to products that compete with those of Complainant.
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and 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 disputed domain name incorporates Complainant’s FOUR LOKO mark in its entirety and merely adds the letter “s” and the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”). Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), adding a gTLD and/or generic terms and/or relevant or meaningless letters is generally insufficient in differentiating a disputed domain name from the mark it incorporates. See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) (“Where a relevant trademark is recognisable within a disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element.”); see also Vanguard Group Inc. v. Proven Fin. Solutions, FA 572937 (Forum Nov. 18, 2005) (holding that the addition of both the word “advisors” and the gTLD “.com” did not sufficiently alter the disputed domain name to negate a finding of confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)); see also Home Depot Product Authority, LLC v. Angelo Kioussis, FA 1784554 (Forum June 4, 2018) (“The domain name contains the mark in its entirety, with only the addition of the generic letters ‘sb’ and the digits ‘2018,’ plus the generic Top Level Domain (“gTLD”) ‘.com.’ These alterations of the mark, made in forming the domain name, do not save it from the realm of confusing similarity under the standards of the Policy.”). Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its FOUR LOKO mark. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name: where a response is lacking, relevant WHOIS information can be used to determine if a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Suzen Khan / Nancy Jain / Andrew Stanzy, FA 1741129 (Forum Aug. 16, 2017) (finding that respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names when the identifying information provided by WHOIS was unrelated to the domain names or respondent’s use of the same). Here, the WHOIS information for the disputed domain name shows that the registrant’s name as “Fernando Aycachi / Personal”. Therefore the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
The resolving website displays advertising hyperlinks for products that compete with those of Complainant. Use of a domain name to redirect users to unrelated third-party sites (whether or not they compete with Complainant) is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. SeeTrulia, Inc. v. Armen A, FA 1586491 (Forum Dec. 2, 2014) (finding that a parked page containing pay-per-click advertising links that resolve to the websites of Complainant’s competitors did “not constitute a Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) bona fide offering of goods or services, or a Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) legitimate noncommercial fair use”); see also Constellation Wines U.S., Inc. v. Tex. Int’l Prop. Assocs., FA 948436 (Forum May 8, 2007) (finding that the respondent had no rights or legitimate interests under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or 4(c)(iii) by using the disputed domain name to operate a website featuring links to goods and services unrelated to the complainant); see also Coachella Music Festival, LLC v. josh greenly / All Access Tickets, FA 1629217 (Forum Aug. 10, 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 as required under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii), where the respondent was using the disputed domain name to host a web page that featured links to services that competed with those of the complainant). Thus the Panel finds that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or 4(c)(iii)). And the Panel finds that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Complainant alleges that Respondent violates the Policy because the resolving website displays a link labeled “Get This Domain”. However, Complainant does not present any evidence showing that Respondent offers the disputed domain name for sale for a price in excess of out-of-pocket costs. Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant has not satisfied its burden of proving a violation of Policy ¶ 4(b)(i) and it will not further discuss this matter.
Respondent (who did not reply to Complainant’s contentions) has not presented any plausible explanation for its use of Complainant’s mark. In accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel shall draw such inferences from Respondent’s failure to reply as it considers appropriate. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent did not have a legitimate use in mind when registering the disputed domain name.
Indeed, as already noted, the resolving website displays advertising links to products that compete with those of Complainant. Use of a disputed domain name to redirect consumers to competing goods or services can be evidence of bad faith disruption of a complainant’s business under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and an attempt to attract users for commercial gain under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Guidehouse LLP v. Zhi Chao Yang, FA 2013476 (Forum Oct. 31, 2022) (“[T]he resolving website displays advertising links to competing services. This constitutes bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).”); see also block.one v. Negalize Interactive Things, FA 1798280 (Forum Aug. 21, 2018) (“Offering links to competing products or services can demonstrate bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) where a respondent registers a domain name that is confusingly similar to the mark of another.”); see also Capital One Financial Corp. v. DN Manager / Whois-Privacy.Net Ltd, FA 1615034 (Forum June 4, 2015) (holding that the respondent’s use of the <capitaloneonebank.com> domain name to display links to the complainant’s competitors, such as Bank of America, Visa, Chase and American Express constituted bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)); see also Capital One Financial Corp. v. Above.com Domain Privacy / Above.com Domain Privacy, FA 1598657 (Forum Feb. 20, 2015) (“This Panel agrees that Respondent’s use as shown in Exhibits C-D illustrates that Respondent here seeks commercial gain through a likelihood of confusion, as competing hyperlinks have been found to establish evidence of intent to seek commercial gain through referral fees, and thus demonstrates bad faith registration under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).”). Therefore the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and/or (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 <fourlokos.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Richard Hill, Panelist
Dated: September 6, 2023
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page