DECISION

 

BDSRCO, Inc. v. Richard A. Block

Claim Number: FA2310002064354

PARTIES

Complainant is BDSRCO, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Paul W. Kruse of Spencer Fane LLP, Tennessee, USA. Respondent is Richard A. Block ("Respondent"), Kentucky, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <beallsfloridacomsurvey.cfd>, registered with NameCheap, Inc..

 

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 October 2, 2023; Forum received payment on October 2, 2023.

 

On October 3, 2023, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <beallsfloridacomsurvey.cfd> domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameCheap, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameCheap, Inc. 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 October 4, 2023, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of October 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@beallsfloridacomsurvey.cfd. Also on October 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 October 25, 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 name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant contends as follows:

Complainant provides retail department store services.

 

Complainant began using BEALLS to identify its retail store department store services and distinguish them from those of others long prior to April 3, 2023.

 

Complainant has rights in the BEALLS mark via registration of such mark with the USPTO

 

Respondent's <beallsfloridacomsurvey.cfd> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's BEALLS trademark.

 

Respondent is not authorized to uses Complainant's trademarks and has no rights or legitimate interests in the at-issue domain name. Respondent's domain name addresses a website that directs users to complete a customer satisfaction survey allegedly sponsored by Complainant. The website is presumably designed to phish for personal information. Respondent registered the domain name for the purpose of disrupting Complainant's business.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant has rights in the BEALLS trademark.

 

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 name after Complainant acquired rights in the BEALLS trademark.

 

Respondent's uses the at-issue domain name to pass itself off as Complainant and facilitate phishing for private information.

 

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 name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.

 

Complainant demonstrates rights in the BEALLS mark through its registration of such mark with the USPTO.  Any relevant national trademark registration is sufficient to show Complainant's rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Target Brands, Inc. v. jennifer beyer, FA 1738027 (Forum July 31, 2017) ("Complainant has rights in its TARGET service mark for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) by virtue of its registration of the mark with a national trademark authority, the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO").").

 

Respondent's <beallsfloridacomsurvey.cfd> domain name consists of Complainant's BEALLS trademark followed by the geographic term "florida" the term "com" and the term "survey" with all followed by the ".cfd" top-level domain name, an initialism for "clothing/fashion design." The differences between Respondent's domain name and Complainant's trademark do nothing to distinguish the domain name from Complainant's mark under the Policy. Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent's <beallsfloridacomsurvey.cfd> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's BEALLS trademark per Policy ¶ 4(a(i). See Microsoft Corporation v. Thong Tran Thanh, FA 1653187 (Forum Jan. 21, 2016) (determining that confusing similarity exist where [a disputed domain name] contains Complainant's entire mark and differs only by the addition of a generic or descriptive phrase and top-level domain, the differences between the domain name and its contained trademark are insufficient to differentiate one from the other for the purposes of the Policy); see also See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("Where a relevant trademark is recognizable 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.").

 

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). Since Respondent failed to respond, Complainant's prima facie showing acts conclusively.

 

Respondent lacks both rights and legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant's trademark 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 legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. See Emerson Electric Co. v. golden humble / golden globals, FA 1787128 (Forum June 11, 2018) ("lack of evidence in the record to indicate a respondent is authorized to use [the] complainant's mark may support a finding that [the] respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)").

 

The WHOIS information for the at-issue domain name reveals the domain name's registrant as "Richard A. Block" and the record before the Panel contains no evidence tending to prove that Respondent is commonly known by <beallsfloridacomsurvey.cfd>. The Panel therefore concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by the <beallsfloridacomsurvey.cfd> domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Braun Corp. v. Loney, FA 699652 (Forum July 7, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain names where the WHOIS information, as well as all other information in the record, gave no indication that the respondent was commonly known by the domain names, and the complainant had not authorized the respondent to register a domain name containing its registered mark).

 

Respondent uses the confusingly similar <beallsfloridacomsurvey.cfd> domain name to address a website supporting an online customer service survey related to Complainant's business. Respondent can use the domain name and referenced website to phish for private data from site visitors who believe they are dealing with a survey authorized or sponsored by Complainant. Respondent's use of the confusingly similar domain name to pass itself off as Complainant and exploit Complainant's trademark to extract personal information from third parties is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a non-commercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Mulberry Co. (Design) Ltd. v. Chen, D2010-1718 (WIPO Nov. 26, 2010) ("[The] disputed domain names are being used by the Respondent for websites which falsely appear to be affiliated, connected or associated with the Complainant. In this Panel's view, such use and purpose of the disputed domain names without the authorization of the trade mark owner shows that the Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain names or a bona fide offering of goods and services.").

 

Given the forgoing, Complainant satisfies its initial burden and demonstrates Respondent's lack of rights and lack of legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

 

As discussed below without being exhaustive, bad faith circumstances are present that lead the Panel to conclude that Respondent acted in bad faith pursuant to the Policy.

 

Respondent employs the at-issue domain name to address an interactive website that is likely used to deceive third parties, believing that they are dealing with Complainant, into giving up private data to Respondent. Complainant's use of the domain name in this manner is disruptive to Complainant's business and shows Respondent's intent to use the confusion it created to attract internet users to the at-issue domain name and its associated survey website. Respondent's use of <beallsfloridacomsurvey.cfd> thus indicates bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Am. Univ. v. Cook, FA208629 (Forum Dec. 22, 2003) ("Registration and use of a domain name that incorporates another's mark with the intent to deceive Internet users in regard to the source or affiliation of the domain name is evidence of bad faith."); see also, See Morgan Stanley v. Bruce Pu, FA 1764120 (Forum Feb. 2, 2018) ("[T]he screenshot of the resolving webpage allows users to input their name and email address, which Complainant claims Respondent uses that to fraudulently phish for information. Thus, the Panel agrees that Respondent phishes for information and finds that Respondent does so in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).")

 

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 <beallsfloridacomsurvey.cfd> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist

Dated: October 26, 2023