DECISION

 

Athletic Propulsion Labs LLC v. Administrator / Domain Administrator / Web Commerce Communications Limited / Client Care

Claim Number: FA2308002059128

PARTIES

Complainant is Athletic Propulsion Labs LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Jaclyne D. Wallace of Foley & Lardner LLP, Illinois, USA. Respondent is Administrator / Domain Administrator / Web Commerce Communications Limited / Client Care ("Respondent"), Malaysia and USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES 

The domain names at issue are <aplnewzealand.com>, <aplzapatillaschile.com>, <apl-malaysia.com>, <aplshoesindia.com> and <athleticpropulsionlabs.shop>, registered with ALIBABA.COM SINGAPORE E-COMMERCE PRIVATE LIMITED and NameSilo, LLC.

 

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.

 

Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on August 25, 2023; Forum received payment on August 25, 2023.

 

On August 29, 2023, ALIBABA.COM SINGAPORE E-COMMERCE PRIVATE LIMITED and NameSilo, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <aplnewzealand.com>, <aplzapatillaschile.com>, <apl-malaysia.com>, <aplshoesindia.com> and <athleticpropulsionlabs.shop> domain names are registered with ALIBABA.COM SINGAPORE E-COMMERCE PRIVATE LIMITED and NameSilo, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. ALIBABA.COM SINGAPORE E-COMMERCE PRIVATE LIMITED and NameSilo, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the ALIBABA.COM SINGAPORE E-COMMERCE PRIVATE LIMITED and NameSilo, 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 September 6, 2023, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 26, 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@aplnewzealand.com, postmaster@aplzapatillaschile.com, postmaster@apl-malaysia.com, postmaster@aplshoesindia.com, postmaster@athleticpropulsionlabs.shop. Also on September 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 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 27, 2023, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Paul M. DeCicco 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.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PRELIMINARY ISSUE: MULTIPLE RESPONDENTS

Complainant alleges that the entities which control the domain names at issue are effectively controlled by the same person and/or entity.  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."

 

The at-issue domain names in the present dispute are similarly constructed as each domain name starts with one of Complainant's trademarks; four of the domain names include a geographical term following Complainant's APL trademark and conclude with the ".com" top-level. Two of these four also contain the word for "shoes" or its Spanish equivalent. Further, these domain names were each registered using the same domain name registrar. All the at-issue domain names are used in a similar manner to facilitate fraud on third parties. Although the <athleticpropulsionlabs.shop> domain name is registered with a different domain name registrar than the Respondent's other confusingly similar domain names and lacks the similar construct of the other four, Complainant submits upon information and belief that all of the at-issue domain names are all, in fact, owned by the same owner/holder, either outright or through aliases, and thus Complainant can bring a single, joint proceeding. Notably, none of the nominal registrants for these domain names have responded or otherwise objected to being aggregated with the others in a single proceeding. Complainant's contention that the domain names' registrants be treated as a single entity in the instant proceeding is thus unopposed. Therefore based on the foregoing, the Panel will treat the domain names' nominal registrants as a single entity for the purposes of this proceeding and such nominal respondents will herein be collectively referred to as Respondent.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant contends as follows:

 

Complainant is a globally recognized as a world leader in both men's and women's athletic footwear and apparel.

 

Complainant has rights in the APL mark through its registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") as well as other registrations worldwide.

 

Respondent's <aplnewzealand.com>, <aplzapatillaschile.com>, <apl-malaysia.com>, <aplshoesindia.com> and <athleticpropulsionlabs.shop> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant's APL trademark or ATHLETIC PROPULSION LABS trademark. Respondent incorporates Complainant's APL mark in four at-issue domain names and such domain names contain generic terms and/or geographic terms, and the ".com" generic top-level domain while one domain name includes Complainant's ATHLETIC PROPULSION LABS trademarks and adds the ".shop" top-level.

 

Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the <aplnewzealand.com>, <aplzapatillaschile.com>, <apl-malaysia.com>, <aplshoesindia.com> and <athleticpropulsionlabs.shop> domain names as Respondent is not commonly known by any at-issue domain name nor did Complainant authorize Respondent to use its APL or ATHLETIC PROPULSION LABS in any way. Respondent fails to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent attempts to impersonate Complainant by resolving to webpages that make use of Complainant's trademark and mimic Complainant's genuine website to further fraud.

 

Respondent registered and used the <aplnewzealand.com>, <aplzapatillaschile.com>, <apl-malaysia.com>, <aplshoesindia.com> and <athleticpropulsionlabs.shop> domain names in bad faith to impersonate Complainant for the fraudulent and criminal purpose of obtaining funds from Complainant's customers. Respondent uses the domain names to address webpages imitating Complainant's genuine website featuring Complainant's APL and ATHLETIC PROPULSION LABS marks. Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the APL and ATHLETIC PROPULSION LABS marks due to their longstanding use and goodwill in the luxury athletic and footwear field of commerce.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant has rights in the APL and ATHLETIC PROPULSION LABS trademarks.

 

Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and had not been authorized to use Complainant's trademark in any capacity.

 

Respondent registered the at-issue domain names after Complainant acquired rights in the APL trademark.

 

The at-issue domain names address webpages that mimic Complainant's genuine website and is used to defraud third parties.

 

DISCUSSION

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").

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

The at-issue domain names are each confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.

 

Complainant's USPTO registrations for APL and ATHLETIC PROPULSION LABS as well as its other national trademark registrations for such marks worldwide are each sufficient to demonstrate Complainant's rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See BGK Trademark Holdings, LLC & Beyoncé Giselle Knowles-Carter v. Chanphut / Beyonce Shop, FA 1626334 (Forum Aug. 3, 2015) (asserting that Complainant's registration with the USPTO (or any other governmental authority) adequately proves its rights under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)).

 

Respondent's <aplnewzealand.com>, <aplzapatillaschile.com>, <apl-malaysia.com>, <aplshoesindia.com> and <athleticpropulsionlabs.shop> domain names each contain Complainant's APL or ATHLETIC PROPULSION LABS trademark. In four of the domain names Complainant's APL trademark is followed by either a geographic term alone or with another generic term, and concludes with the ".com," top-level domain name. Respondent's <athleticpropulsionlabs.shop> domain name contains Complainant's ATHLETIC PROPULSION LABS trademark followed by the ".shop" top-level domain name. The differences between any of Respondent's domain names and Complainant's relevant trademark are insufficient to distinguish any such domain name from Complainant's APL or ATHLETIC PROPULSION LABS mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent's at-issue domain names are each confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights. See Wiluna Holdings, LLC v. Edna Sherman, FA 1652781 (Forum Jan. 22, 2016) (finding the addition of a generic term and gTLD is insufficient in distinguishing a disputed domain name from a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)); see also, Dell Inc. v. Suchada Phrasaeng, FA 1745812 (Forum Sept. 28, 2017) ("Adding geographical terms does not sufficiently distinguish a domain name from a mark to prevent a finding of confusingly similarity under a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis."); see also, Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Domain Administrator / Registry Services, LLC, FA2303002038314, Forum July 26, 2023) ("The addition of a gTLD fails to sufficiently distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).").

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm't Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006).

 

Respondent lacks both rights and legitimate interests in respect of each at-issue domain name. Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant's trademarks in any capacity and, as discussed below, there are no Policy ¶ 4(c) circumstances from which the Panel might find that Respondent has rights or interests in respect of any at-issue domain name. See Charter Communications Holding Company, LLC v. Taha Shaikh / Tskdesigners, FA 1814475 (Forum Nov. 25, 2018) (finding no rights or legitimate interests in <spectrumfeature.com> because complainant never gave respondent permission to use the mark in any manner and Panels may use these assertions as evidence that no rights or legitimate interests exist in a disputed domain name.").

 

The WHOIS information for the at-issue domain names does not identify any domain names' registrant by a name that is suggestive of one of the at-issue domain names and the record before the Panel contains no evidence that tends to prove that any nominal registrant is commonly known by one (or more) of the at-issue domain names. The Panel therefore concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by <aplnewzealand.com>, <aplzapatillaschile.com>, <apl-malaysia.com>, <aplshoesindia.com> or <athleticpropulsionlabs.shop> for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Coppertown Drive-Thru Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089 (Forum July 17, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <coppertown.com> domain name where there was no evidence in the record, including the WHOIS information, suggesting that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name).

 

Respondent's <aplnewzealand.com>, <aplzapatillaschile.com>, <apl-malaysia.com>, <aplshoesindia.com> and <athleticpropulsionlabs.shop> domain names address websites that mimic Complainant's genuine website. Respondent thereby attempts to pass itself off as Complainant so as to defraud third parties. Respondent's use of the at-issue domain names in this manner fails to promote a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Ripple Labs Inc. v. NGYEN NGOC PHUONG THAO, FA 1741737 (Forum Aug. 21, 2017) ("Respondent uses the [disputed] domain name to divert Internet users to Respondent's website… confusing them into believing that some sort of affiliation exists between it and Complainant… [which] is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).").

 

Given the forgoing and absent any evidence suggesting Respondent's rights or legitimate interest in the at-issue domain names, Complainant satisfies its initial burden under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) and shows Respondent's lack of rights and legitimate interests in each at-issue domain name.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

As discussed below without limitation, bad faith circumstances are present from which the Panel concludes that Respondent registered and used the at-issue domain names in bad faith pursuant to the Policy.

 

Respondent uses each at-issue domain name to address a website mimicking Complainant's genuine website. The websites are ultimately used to defraud third parties who mistakenly believe they are dealing with Complainant.  Such use of the confusingly similar at-issue domain names indicates Respondent's bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Ripple Labs Inc. v. Jessie McKoy / Ripple Reserve Fund, FA 1790949 (Forum July 9, 2018) (finding bad faith per Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv) where the respondent used the disputed domain name to resolve to a website upon which the respondent passes off as the complainant and offers online cryptocurrency services in direct competition with the complainant's business); see also Bittrex, Inc. v. Caroline Alves Maia, FA 1796113 (Forum Aug. 6, 2018) (finding the respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) because the respondent used the disputed domain name to present users with a website that was "virtually identical, with the same color scheme, the same layout and the same substantive content" and used the website to gain access to users' cryptocurrency accounts); see also, Klabzuba Oil & Gas, Inc. v. LAKHPAT SINGH BHANDARI, FA1506001625750 (Forum July 17, 2015) ("Respondent uses the <klabzuba-oilgas.com> domain to engage in phishing, which means Respondent registered and uses the domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)."); see also FIL Limited v. Li jie, FA 1718900 (Forum Mar. 17, 2017) (finding the <fidelity.cn.com> domain name was registered and used in bad faith as it resolved to a website which mimicked the complainant's login page in an attempt to gain Internet users' personal and financial information).

 

Moreover, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the APL mark when it registered <aplnewzealand.com>, <aplzapatillaschile.com>, <apl-malaysia.com>, and <aplshoesindia.com> as domain names. Likewise, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in ATHLETIC PROPULSION LABS when it registered <athleticpropulsionlabs.shop>. Respondent's actual knowledge is evident given the notoriety of Complainant's trademarks; given that Respondent includes Complainant's trademark in numerous domain names; and given that the domain names address websites mimicking Complainant's genuine website. Respondent's registration of the at-issue domain names with knowledge of Complainant's trademark rights demonstrates Respondent's bad faith registration and use of the at-issue domain names pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name); see also, Univision Comm'cns Inc. v. Norte, FA 1000079 (Forum Aug. 16, 2007) (rejecting the respondent's contention that it did not register the disputed domain name in bad faith since the panel found that the respondent had knowledge of the complainant's rights in the UNIVISION mark when registering the disputed domain name).

 

DECISION

Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <aplnewzealand.com>, <aplzapatillaschile.com>, <apl-malaysia.com>, <aplshoesindia.com> and <athleticpropulsionlabs.shop> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist

Dated: September 28, 2023