DECISION

 

Reebok International Limited v. Web Commerce Communications Limited / Client Care

Claim Number: FA2403002090126

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Reebok International Limited ("Complainant"), represented by Bridgette Fitzpatrick of Authentic Brands Group LLC, New York, USA. Respondent is Web Commerce Communications Limited / Client Care ("Respondent"), Malaysia.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <lojareebokbrasil.com>, registered with ALIBABA.COM SINGAPORE E-COMMERCE PRIVATE LIMITED.

 

PANEL

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.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on March 25, 2024; Forum received payment on March 25, 2024.

 

On March 27, 2024, ALIBABA.COM SINGAPORE E-COMMERCE PRIVATE LIMITED confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <lojareebokbrasil.com> domain name is registered with ALIBABA.COM SINGAPORE E-COMMERCE PRIVATE LIMITED and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. ALIBABA.COM SINGAPORE E-COMMERCE PRIVATE LIMITED has verified that Respondent is bound by the ALIBABA.COM SINGAPORE E-COMMERCE PRIVATE LIMITED 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 March 28, 2024, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 17, 2024 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@lojareebokbrasil.com. Also on March 28, 2024, 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 April 18, 2024, 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.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

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

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant states that it is currently, and for many years has been, one of the world's leading manufacturers of athletic footwear, apparel and sport, exercise and fitness equipment, and has advertised, marketed, promoted, distributed and sold such worldwide under its well-known and famous REEBOK trademark. Complainant asserts rights in the REEBOK mark through its registration in the United States in 1980. The mark is registered elsewhere around the world.

 

Complainant alleges that the disputed domain is confusingly similar to its REEBOK mark because it incorporates the mark in its entirety, merely adding the generic/descriptive term "loja" (which means "store" in Portuguese), the geographic term "Brasil" (which translates to "Brazil" from various languages) and the ".com" generic top-level domain ("gTLD").

 

According to Complainant, Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Complainant has not authorized or licensed Respondent to use its REEBOK mark, nor is Respondent commonly known by the disputed domain name. Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use as the resolving website displays pay-per-click advertising hyperlinks to products that are not related to those of Complainant.

 

Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. The resolving website displays pay-per-click advertising hyperlinks to products that are not related to those of Complainant. Respondent had constructive and/or actual notice of Complainant's rights in the REEBOK mark.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant has registered trademarks for the mark REEBOK and uses it to market athletic footwear and apparel. The mark was registered in 1980.

 

Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark.

 

The disputed domain name was registered in 2023.

 

The resolving website displays pay-per-click advertising hyperlinks to products that are not related to those of Complainant.

 

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 disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's REEBOK mark in its entirety, merely adding the generic/descriptive term "loja" (which means "store" in Portuguese), the geographic term "Brasil" (which translates to "Brazil" from various languages), and the ".com" generic top-level domain ("gTLD"). Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), adding a gTLD and/or generic/descriptive terms 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)). Therefore the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name: under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), the Panel may reference WHOIS information to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by a disputed domain name. 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 shows that the registrant is known as "Web Commerce Communications Limited / Client Care". Therefore the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

The resolving website displays advertising hyperlinks for products that are not related to 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. See 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). For this reason also, 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) and 4(c)(iii)). And the Panel finds that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

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 promotes products unrelated to Complainant's business. Such use of a domain name can demonstrate a respondent's bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Allianz of Am. Corp. v. Bond, FA 680624 (Forum June 2, 2006) (finding bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the respondent was diverting Internet users searching for the complainant to its own website and likely profiting); see also Fossil, Inc. v. wwwfossil-watch.org c/o Hostmaster, FA 335513 (Forum Nov. 9, 2004) (finding bad faith where respondent attempted to profit from the fame of complainant's trademark by attracting internet traffic to his website); see also Tumblr, Inc. v. Ailing Liu, FA 1543807 (Forum Mar. 24, 2014) ("Bad faith use and registration exists under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where a respondent uses a confusingly similar domain name to resolve to a website featuring links and advertisements unrelated to complainant's business and respondent is likely collecting fees."). The Panel therefore finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).

 

Further the Panel notes, obiter dictum, that Respondent appears to have been found to have registered and used domain names in bad faith in numerous prior UDRP proceedings. Thus it may be that case that Respondent has engaged in a pattern of bad faith registration and use of domain names.

 

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 <lojareebokbrasil.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Richard Hill, Panelist

Dated: April 18, 2024