DECISION
Brooklinen, Inc. v. Cynthia parker
Claim Number: FA2502002139011
PARTIES
Complainant is Brooklinen, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Matthew P. Hintz of Lowenstein Sandler LLP, New Jersey, USA. Respondent is Cynthia parker ("Respondent"), California, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <brooklinenbedding.com>, registered with Spaceship, Inc.
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.
Héctor Ariel Manoff as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 6, 2025; Forum received payment on February 6, 2025.
On February 7, 2025, Spaceship, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <brooklinenbedding.com> domain name is registered with Spaceship, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Spaceship, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Spaceship, 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 February 10, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 3, 2025 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@brooklinenbedding.com. Also on February 10, 2025, 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 March 4, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Héctor Ariel Manoff 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
1- Complainant, Brooklinen, Inc. is a company that commercializes sheets, comforters, pillows, towels, loungewear, and other home essentials.
2- Complainant owns trademark registrations for BROOKLINEN at least and the domain name <brooklinen.com> since 2013.
3- Complainant has prominently and extensively used, promoted, and advertised the BROOKLINEN mark for over a decade.
4- Respondent registered the disputed domain name on December 30, 2024.
5- The Disputed Domain Name incorporates the entirety of the BROOKLINEN mark into <brooklinenbedding.com> with the additions of "bedding" and the Top-Level Domain ("TLD") ".com".
6- The website available at the disputed domain name alleged to sell sheets, towels, and other home essentials to consumers.
7- The disputed domain name was used to pass itself off as Complainant, to confuse consumers.
8- Respondent cannot demonstrate any legitimate rights or interest in the disputed domain name.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
FINDINGS
Complainant, Brooklinen, Inc., owns trademark registration for BROOKLINEN and the domain name <brooklinen.com> as from at least 2013 which are used in connection with commercialization of sheets, comforters, pillows, towels, and other home essentials. Respondent registered the disputed domain name in 2024. Respondent registered and is using the domain name in bad faith.
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 Panel finds that the disputed domain name <brooklinenbedding.com> is nearly identical and confusingly similar to Complainant's BROOKLINEN marks, in which Complainant has rights. (Exhibit 6).
The disputed domain name <brooklinenbedding.com> incorporates Complainant's BROOKLINEN mark and adds the generic term "bedding" along with the generic top-level domain ("gTLD") ".COM".
The Panel finds that the term BROOKLINEN is a fanciful and arbitrary term and that it is clear that Respondent knew it belonged to Complainant. Respondent has just added a generic word which is related to the goods identified by Complainant's trademark. The Panel finds that the domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark since the additional elements are not sufficiently distinctive. (See Microsoft Corporation v. Thong Tran Thanh, FA 1653187 (Forum Jan. 21, 2016) (determining that confusing similarity exists 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, 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").
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical and confusingly similar to BROOKLINEN mark, in which Complainant has rights, under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <brooklinenbedding.com> domain name because Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use the BROOKLINEN mark. 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)").
In addition, Respondent has neither filed a response nor submitted evidence to prove that Respondent has any trademark rights in the <brooklinenbedding.com> domain name.
WHOIS information does not suggest that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name (Exhibit 1). This Panel finds that Respondent has never been commonly known by the domain name.
The evidence submitted by Complainant shows that Respondent's use of the <brooklinenbedding.com> domain is not a bona fide offering of goods. (Exhibit 7). The disputed domain name seems have been used to pass itself off as Complainant, to confuse consumers. According to the evidence filed by Complainant (Exhibit 7), the website of the disputed domain name listed collaborations by Complainant with other brands (Exhibit 8).
This Panel agrees with Complainant that Respondent is not using the domain name in connection with a legitimate noncommercial use or fair use under Policy 4(c)(iii).
Therefore, the Panel agrees that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and does not have legitimate interest under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
The domain registration by Respondent was done after Complainant's domain name and trademarks had been registered and first use in commerce had started.
Complainant has proved trademark rights and use for many years, which are prior to the domain name's date of registration (2024) (Exhibits 3, 4, 5 and 6).
The <brooklinenbedding.com> domain name was registered by including the exact mark and by adding a generic term related to Complainant's goods of interest. Thus, the Panel finds that the registration of the domain name was done with Complainant's marks in mind.
The Panel finds bad faith in these two circumstances.
In addition, this Panel finds that the use of the domain name was done in bad faith as well. Complainant has submitted evidence (Exhibit 7) to prove that the domain name is used to impersonate Complainant. The website lists collaborations by Complainant with other brands (Exhibit 7 and 8).
The Panel determines that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name 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 <brooklinenbedding.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
__________________________________________________________________
Héctor Ariel Manoff, Panelist
Dated: March 13, 2025
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page