DECISION
Crane NXT, Co. v. Michele R. Garcia
Claim Number: FA2502002139675
PARTIES
Complainant is Crane NXT, Co. ("Complainant"), represented by Allison Ainsworth Johns of Munck Wilson Mandala, LLP, Texas, USA. Respondent is Michele R. Garcia ("Respondent"), Pennsylvania, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <cranevending.com>, registered with NICENIC INTERNATIONAL GROUP CO., LIMITED.
PANEL
James Bridgeman SC as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 11, 2025; Forum received payment on February 11, 2025.
On February 12, 2025, NICENIC INTERNATIONAL GROUP CO., LIMITED confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <cranevending.com> domain name is registered with NICENIC INTERNATIONAL GROUP CO., LIMITED and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NICENIC INTERNATIONAL GROUP CO., LIMITED has verified that Respondent is bound by the NICENIC INTERNATIONAL GROUP CO., 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 February 18, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 10, 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@cranevending.com.
Also on February 18, 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 11, 2025 pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed James Bridgeman SC 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 disputed domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
PARTIES' CONTENTIONS
A. Complainant
Complainant claims rights in the CRANE and CRANE NXT marks established by its ownership of the portfolio of trademarks and service marks described below and use of the marks in its international division including in its business as a provider of integrated payment solutions and vending technologies.
Through its dedicated vending division—often referred to as Crane Merchandising Systems—Complainant designs, manufactures, and distributes state-of-the-art vending machines and their components.
Complainant asserts that it has used the CRANE mark in commerce in connection with vending machines since at least as early as 1985, establishing a legacy of quality and reliability in the industry.
Complainant firstly alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the CRANE and CRANE NXT marks in which it has rights arguing that the disputed domain name incorporates the well-known CRANE mark in its entirety, adding only the generic term "vending" and the generic TLD ("gTLD") extension <.com> to the end of Complainant's trademark.
In addition, Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name incorporates the first and dominant element of the CRANE NXT mark. See Perot Sys. Corp. v. Perot.net, FA 95312 (Forum Aug. 29, 2000) (finding that given the similarity of the Complainant's marks with the domain name, consumers will presume the domain name is affiliated with the Complainant).
Furthermore, Complainant adds that the disputed domain name contains the descriptive element "vending", which is a generic term used to describe the category of products offered by Complainant and the element "vending" within the disputed domain name is insufficient to negate that confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and Complainant's marks.
Complainant also submits that the Top-Level Domain extension <.com> is irrelevant to the determination of whether the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's marks; adding that the additional element does not sufficiently distinguish the disputed domain name from Complainant's marks under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Abbott Laboratories v. Whois Service c/o Belize Domain WHOIS Service, FA0903001254682 (Forum May 14, 2009) ("the addition of a gTLD is irrelevant in distinguishing a disputed domain name from a registered mark").
Complainant secondly alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, arguing that
· Respondent is not commonly known by Complainant's CRANE and CRANE NXT marks;
· the WHOIS for the disputed domain name indicates that Respondent's identity is anonymized by the Registrar as REDACTED FOR PRIVACY but the Registrar's response to the enquiry by Forum for the purposes of this Complaint, reveals that Respondent is the registrant;
· Respondent identifies herself as "Michele R. Garcia", listing no organization name and providing no mention of "Crane Vending" in the registrant information: see Skyy Spirits LLC v. Stanislaw Krzenszczynski, FA0903001254423 (Forum May 20, 2009) (holding that respondent was not commonly known by the <skyyvodkas.com> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) where the registrant information listed Stanislaw Krzenszczynski as the Registrant Name);
· Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant in any way;
· Respondent is not licensed by Complainant to use any of Complainant's marks;
· Respondent is not an authorized vendor, supplier, or distributor of Complainant's goods and services;
· a screen capture of the website to which the disputed domain name resolves which is exhibited in an annex to the Complaint displays and describes goods similar to Complainant's vending machine offerings offered under Complainant's marks but Respondent's website states that its goods are offered by an entity called Crane Vending Inc. with a different address than Respondent (i.e., 1215 Cleveland Ave Columbus, Ohio);
· a search of the Ohio Secretary of State "Business Search" service shows no entity called Crane Vending Inc.;
· a Westlaw "Company Investigator" search shows no "Crane Vending Inc." anywhere, and on information and belief, Respondent's website is entirely fraudulent;
· while it is unclear what the relationship between Respondent and the entity "Crane Vending Inc." may be, it is clear that Respondent is not the party offerings the goods located at the disputed domain name and as such, Respondent does not offer bona fide goods or services in connection with the disputed domain name;
· Respondent has not used the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide, non-infringing offering of goods and services or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.
Complainant submits that the screen captures of the website to which the disputed domain name resolves purports to market vending machine goods similar to those of Complainant's vending machine offerings. Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is therefore being used to offer goods and services identical to and directly competitive with Complainant's vending machine offerings.
Moreover, Complainant submits that while some of the listings on Respondent's site feature an "add to cart option", it is unclear whether Respondent's purported offerings are legitimate ones. For instance, many of Respondent's vending machine listings instruct users to visit "vending.com" rather than allow consumers to purchase the listed products through the website to which the disputed domain name resolves.
Complainant refers to the following statements that are posted on the website to which the disputed domain name resolves:
"[f]ind the ideal solution at Vending.com"; "[o]ffer some chill on a hot day with Vending.com's Frozen Treats Ice Cream Vending Machine!"; "[m]aximize your storage facility income with custom vending machines from Vending.com."; "[s]tay hydrated with our reliable water vending equipment at Vending.com".
Complainant submits that such listings instruct users to visit the website to which <vending.com> resolves, which offers vending machine products that compete with Complainant's offerings; as illustrated by screen captures of the website to which the domain name <vending.com> resolves which are exhibited in an annex to the Complaint.
Complainant adds that the product listing photos on Respondent's website appear to be taken directly from <vending.com>.
In addition Complainant submits that much of the content on the website to which the disputed domain name resolves appears to be copied from another third-party website, suggesting that it is not a legitimate website offering legitimate products.
It is contended that Respondent's use of the disputed domain name to offer competing goods and/or point users to a third-party, competing website are not legitimate, non-infringing uses. see General Motors LLC v. MIKE LEE, FA 1659965 (Forum Mar. 10, 2016) (finding that "use of a domain to sell products and/or services that compete directly with a complainant's business does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).").
Complainant thirdly alleges that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith, arguing that Respondent had actual or constructive knowledge of Complainant's marks.
It is submitted that at the time Respondent registered the disputed domain name on March 12, 2024, Complainant's CRANE and CRANE NXT marks were already in use commercially and were registered in numerous jurisdictions.
Complainant again refers to the exhibited website to which the disputed domain name resolves and submits that it purports to offer for sale competing products and directs users to make a purchase from, or at least visit the website located at <vending.com>, which also features competing vending machine offerings.
Complainant argues that Respondent's offerings of products that directly compete with Complainant's offerings as well as the promotion of a third-party, competing business constitute an attempt to commercially benefit, unfairly and opportunistically, from the goodwill associated with Complainant's CRANE and CRANE NXT marks. Complainant submits that such conduct of diversion shows bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See V Secret Catalogue, Inc. v. Little, FA 301728 (Forum Sept. 2, 2004) ("Respondent's practice of diversion, motivated by commercial gain, constitutes bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)").
Complainant also contends that Respondent's prominent and pervasive use of Complainant's marks to identify itself is calculated and likely to confuse and mislead the public as to the source of Respondent's website and constitutes passing off.
Complaint argues that passing off is evidenced by the fact that: the disputed domain name fully incorporates the CRANE mark and the dominant portion of the CRANE NXT mark; Respondent's website content prominently displays the word and mark CRANE throughout; Respondent offers competitive products and advertises on the behalf third-party competitors such as <vending.com>, through Respondent's website; and Respondent's website links to and references at least one other website that features another third party's trademark, suggesting a pattern of deliberate infringing domain activity.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
FINDINGS
Complainant is an industrial technology company and provides integrated payment solutions and vending technologies. Complainant owns an international portfolio of trademark and service mark registrations for the CRANE and CRANE NXT mark including
· United States registered trademark, CRANE, registration number 1,663,928 registered on the Principal Register on November 12 1991, for goods in international class 6;
· United Kingdom registered trade mark CRANE, registration number UK00901012939, registered on June 9, 2000 for goods in class 9;
· United Kingdom registered trade mark CRANE NXT, registration number UK00003774436, registered on September 2, 2022 for goods and services in classes 7, 9, 11, 16, 17, 36, 37, 39, 40, 42 and 45.
The disputed domain name <cranevending.com> was registered on March 12, 2024, and resolves to a website that purports to offer vending machines for sale and contains links to competitors of Complainant.
There is no information available about Respondent except for that provided in the Complaint, as amended, the Registrar's WhoIs and the information provided by the Registrar in response to the request by Forum for details of the registration of the disputed domain name for the purposes of this proceeding.
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
Complainant has provided uncontested convincing evidence of its rights in the CRANE and CRANE NXT marks established by its ownership of the portfolio of registered trademarks described above and extensive use of the mark by its business including manufacturing and supplying vending machines.
The disputed domain name is composed of Complainant's CRANE trademark albeit with the addition of the descriptive term "vending" and the generic Top Level Domain (" gTLD") extension <.com>.
Complainant's registered CRANE trademark is contained in its entirety within the disputed domain name and it is well established that once a domain name at issue contains a complainant's mark in its entirety a panel may find that the domain name at issue and the mark relied upon are confusingly similar.
In the present case that addition of the descriptive element "vending" to Complainant's mark does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity.
In the circumstances of this case the gTLD extension <.com> within the disputed domain name may be ignored for the purposes of comparing Complainant's mark and the disputed domain name, because it would be considered by Internet users to be a necessary technical element for a domain name registration.
This Panel finds therefore that the disputed domain name is identical to the CRANE trademark in which the Complainant has rights and the Complainant has therefore succeeded in the first element of the test in Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Rights or Legitimate Interests
In its Complaint, Complainant has made out a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights legitimate interests in the disputed domain names as set out in Complainant's detailed submissions above.
It is well established that once a complainant makes out a prima facie case that a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name at issue, the burden of production shifts to the respondent to prove its rights or legitimate interests.
Respondent has failed to discharge that burden and therefore this Panel must find that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Complainant has therefore succeeded in the second element of the test in Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
Complainant's registered trademark CRANE is clearly recognizable as the only distinctive element within the disputed domain name.
Complainant's registered service mark rights in the mark predate the registration of the disputed domain name and its United States registration described above dates back to November 12 1991, whereas the disputed domain name was not registered until March 12, 2024.
It is improbable that the registrant of the disputed domain name was unaware of Complainant's mark when the disputed domain name was chosen and registered because the disputed domain name is composed of Complainant's mark and the descriptive term "vending" which describes a category of products sold by Complainant's international division.
There appears to be no plausible reason for registering the disputed domain name other than to create an association with Complainant and its CRANE mark.
On the balance of probabilities, therefore, this Panel finds that the disputed domain name was in fact chosen and registered with Complainant's mark in mind with the intention of taking predatory advantage of Complainant's rights and goodwill in the CRANE mark.
The uncontested evidence in the form of the screen capture of the website to which the disputed domain name resolves shows that Respondent is using the disputed domain name to misdirect Internet traffic to Respondent's website that purports to offer products directly competing with those offered by Complainant.
Furthermore, the word and mark CRANE is used liberally across Respondent's website which must result in the creation of confusion among Internet users visiting Respondent's site.
The evidence adduced by Complainant therefore allows this Panel to find that on the balance of probabilities the disputed domain name is being used in bad faith because: the disputed domain name fully incorporates the CRANE mark and the dominant portion of the CRANE NXT mark; the content of the website to which the disputed domain name resolves prominently displays "CRANE" throughout; the content of the website to which the disputed domain name resolves purports to offer products that compete with Complainant and advertises on the behalf third-party competitors such as <vending.com>; and Respondent's website links to and references at least one other website that featuring another third party's trademark.
Such use of Complainant's CRANE trademark within the disputed domain name as the address of the resolving website is on the balance of probabilities intentionally intended to attract and confuse Internet users and cause them to divert their Internet traffic intended for Complainant and misdirect it to Respondent's website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your web site, which constitutes bad faith for the purposes of the Policy.
For completeness, this Panel makes no finding that there is any association between Respondent and the domain name <vending.com> or any other domain name. Neither does this Panel make any finding that there is any association between Respondent and the entity that owns or uses the domain name <vending.com> or any third party.
As this Panel has found that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith, Complainant has succeeded in the third element of the test in 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 <cranevending.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
James Bridgeman SC
Panelist
Dated: March 13, 2025
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page