DECISION

 

AutoZone IP LLC v. Danial Corwayl / Register LLC TrafficDomains

Claim Number: FA2409002117399

 

PARTIES

Complainant is AutoZone IP LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Gregory J. Krabacher of Epstein Becker & Green, P.C., Ohio, USA. Respondent is Danial Corwayl / Register LLC TrafficDomains ("Respondent"), Latvia.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <autoozon.pro>, ('the Domain Name') registered with Global Domain Group LLC.

 

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.

 

Dawn Osborne as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

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

On September 25, 2024, Global Domain Group LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <autoozon.pro> Domain Name is registered with Global Domain Group LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Global Domain Group LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Global Domain Group 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 October 1, 2024, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of October 21, 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@autoozon.pro. Also on October 1, 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 October 22, 2024 pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Dawn Osborne 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

The Complainant's contentions can be summarised as follows:

 

The Complainant is the owner of the well known trade mark AUTOZONE, registered, inter alia, in the USA for retail services related to auto parts since 1988. It owns <autozone.com>.

 

The Domain Name registered in 2024 is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trade mark merely removing a letter 'e', adding an extra letter 'o', and adding the gTLD <.pro>, none of which prevents said confusing similarity.

 

The Respondent does not have rights or a legitimate interest in the Domain Name, is not commonly known by it and has not been authorised by the Complainant.

 

Respondent registered and used the Domain Name in opportunistic bad faith as a typosquatting registration and has used it in bad faith for a website using the Complainant's mark spelled correctly in its masthead to purport to be the genuine Complainant's portal for its employees. The sites is phishing, designed to confuse the Complainant's employees into believing that Respondent's site actual originates from the Complainant. The site is causing confusion for commercial gain and disrupting the Complainant's business.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

The Complainant is the owner of the trade mark AUTOZONE, registered, inter alia, in the USA for retail services related to auto parts since 1988. It owns <autozone.com>.

The Domain Name registered in 2024 has been used for a website using the Complainant's mark spelled correctly in its masthead to purport to be the genuine Complainant's portal for its employees.

 

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 Domain Name consists of a sign confusingly similar to the Complainant's mark (which is registered, inter alia in the USA for retail services related to auto parts since 1988) merely adding an extra letter 'o', removing the letter 'e', and adding the gTLD <.pro>.

The Panel agrees that the misspelling of the Complainant's mark does not distinguish the Domain Name from the Complainant's trade mark pursuant to the Policy. See Twitch Interactive Inc. v Zhang qin, FA 1626511 (Forum Aug 4, 2015).

 

The gTLD <.pro> does not serve to distinguish the Domain Name from the Complainant's mark. See Red Hat Inc v Haecke, FA 726010 (Forum July 24, 2006) (concluding that the redhat.org domain name is identical to the complainant's red hat mark because the mere addition of the gTLD was insufficient to differentiate the disputed domain name from the mark).

 

Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar for the purpose of the Policy to a mark in which the Complainant has rights.

As such the Panel holds that Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been satisfied.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant has not authorised the use of its mark. There is no evidence or reason to suggest the Respondent is, in fact, commonly known by the Domain Name. See Alaska Air Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines v. Song Bin, FA 1574905 (Forum Sept. 17, 2014) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name as demonstrated by the WHOIS information and based on the fact that the complainant had not licensed or authorized the respondent to use its ALASKA AIRLINES mark).

 

The web site attached to the Domain Name features the Complainant's AUTOZONE mark spelt correctly in its masthead to deceptively purport to be the Complainant's employee portal for phishing purposes. Under Policy 4(c)(i) and (iii), the use of a disputed domain name in furtherance of a phishing scheme is not considered a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See Enterprise Holdings, Inc. v. I S / Internet Consulting Services Inc., FA 1785242 (Forum June 5, 2018) ("On its face, the use of a domain name that is confusingly similar to the mark of another in order to facilitate a phishing scheme cannot be described as either a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶4(c)(iii).").

 

Further the Domain Name is a typosquatting registration, adding an extra letter 'o' and removing the letter 'e' in the Complainant's AUTOZONE mark. Typosquatting is an indication of a lack of rights or legitimate interests. See Chegg Inc. v. yang qijin, FA 1610050 (Forum Apr. 23, 2015) ("Users might mistakenly reach Respondent's resolving website by misspelling Complainant's mark. Taking advantage of Internet users' typographical errors, known as typosquatting, demonstrates a respondent's lack of rights or legitimate interests under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).").

 

The Respondent has not answered this Complaint and has not rebutted the prima face case evidenced by the Complainant as set out herein.

 

As such the Panelist finds that the Respondent does not have rights or a legitimate interest in the Domain Name and that the Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

 Typosquatting is bad faith per se and shows actual knowledge of the Complainant. See Cost Plus Management Services, Inc. v. xushuaiwei, FA 1800036 (Forum Sep. 7, 2018) ("Typosquatting itself is evidence of relevant bad faith registration and use."). If the Panel finds Respondent engaged in typosquatting, it may find bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

Respondent uses the Domain Name to engage in apparent phishing. The use of a disputed domain name in furtherance of a phishing scheme is considered evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). 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).").

 

The use of the Complainant's mark spelled correctly on the web site attached to the Domain Name shows the Respondent is aware of the Complainant and the Complainant's rights, business and services.

 

Respondent has used a domain name that is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark which is well known for the retail provision of auto parts to attract Internet users to its website for commercial gain. See Perot Sys. Corp. v. Perot.net, FA 95312 (Forum Aug. 29, 2000) (finding bad faith where the domain name in question is obviously connected with the complainant's well-known marks, thus creating a likelihood of confusion strictly for commercial gain); Further see Red Bull GmbH v. Gutch, D2000-0766 (WIPO Sept. 21, 2000) (finding that the respondent's expected use of the domain name <redbull.org> would lead people to believe that the domain name was connected with the complainant, and thus is the equivalent to bad faith use).

 

 Respondent engages in opportunistic bad faith with the well known AUTOZONE mark disrupting the Complainant's business. Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii), when a mark is famous use of the mark in a disputed domain name may be considered evidence of opportunistic bad faith. See Harrods Ltd. v. Harrod's Closet, D2001-1027 (WIPO Sept. 28, 2001) (finding that where a mark is so "obviously connected with well-known products," it's very use by someone with no connection to these products can evidence opportunistic bad faith); see also Sony Kabushiki Kaisha v. Inja, Kil, D2000-1409 (WIPO Dec. 9, 2000) (finding bad faith registration and use where it is "inconceivable that the respondent could make any active use of the disputed domain names without creating a false impression of association with the Complainant").

 

As such, the Panelist believes that the Complainant has made out its case that the Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith and has satisfied the third limb of the Policy under Paragraphs 4(b)(iii) and (iv).

 

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 <autoozon.pro> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Dawn Osborne, Panelist

Dated: October 22, 2024