DECISION

 

Dollar Tree Stores, Inc. v. ΚΛΕΑΝΘΗΣ ΝΙΚΟΛΑΙΔΗΣ

Claim Number: FA2502002142799

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Dollar Tree Stores, Inc. ("Complainant"), United States, represented by Tore T. DeBella of Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, United States. Respondent is ΚΛΕΑΝΘΗΣ ΝΙΚΟΛΑΙΔΗΣ ("Respondent"), Greece.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <dollartreeinc.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.

 

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.

 

David E. Sorkin as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 28, 2025; Forum received payment on February 28, 2025.

 

On February 28, 2025, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by email to Forum that the <dollartreeinc.com> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, 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 March 6, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 26, 2025 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via email to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@dollartreeinc.com. Also on March 6, 2025, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the email 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 27, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed David E. Sorkin 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 is a retail store chain that operates more than 15,000 stores across the 48 contiguous U.S. states and five Canadian provinces. Complainant has used DOLLAR TREE in connection with its services since at least as early as 1986. Complainant owns longstanding United States trademark registrations for DOLLAR TREE in standard character and stylized form, along with registrations in other jurisdictions, and also asserts common law rights in the mark based upon extensive use and promotion.

 

The disputed domain name <dollartreeinc.com> was registered in October 2024. The name is registered in the name of a privacy registration service on behalf of Respondent. The domain name resolves to a parked page composed of pay-per-click links to services related to those provided by Complainant. Complainant states that the domain name is also being used to impersonate one of Complainant's board members in email messages seeking to purchase products from vendors. Complainant alleges that Respondent had constructive notice of Complainant's mark by virtue of Complainant's trademark registrations. Complainant states that Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name and is not licensed to use Complainant's mark.

 

Complainant contends on the above grounds that the disputed domain name <dollartreeinc.com> is confusingly similar to its DOLLAR TREE mark; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used 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 Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, § 4.3 (3d ed. 2017), available at http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/; UDRP Perspectives on Recent Jurisprudence, §§ 0.2, 0.8 (updated Jan. 15, 2025), available at https://udrpperspectives.org/; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (dismissing complaint where complainant failed to "produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations").

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

The disputed domain name <dollartreeinc.com> incorporates Complainant's registered DOLLAR TREE trademark, omitting the space and adding the term "inc." and the ".com" top-level domain. These alterations do not substantially diminish the similarity between the domain name and Complainant's mark. See, e.g., Generac Power Systems, Inc. v. second second, FA 2142315 (Forum Mar. 21, 2025) (finding <generacinc.com> confusingly similar to GENERAC); Dollar Tree Stores, Inc. v. Above.com Domain Privacy, FA 1400249 (Forum Sept. 6, 2011) (finding <dollartreesurvey.com> confusingly similar to DOLLAR TREE). The Panel considers the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Under the Policy, the Complainant must first make a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and then the burden shifts to the Respondent to come forward with concrete evidence of such rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Productions, Inc. v. Entertainment Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006).

 

The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's registered mark without authorization. It is being used to display a parked page composed of pay-per-click links, apparently generated by the registrar, and to impersonate Complainant in email correspondence for fraudulent purposes. Such use does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests under the Policy. See, e.g., Generac Power Systems, Inc. v. second second, supra (finding lack of rights or interests arising from use for fraudulent phishing scheme); Canadian Tire Corp., Ltd. v. ΚΛΕΑΝΘΗΣ ΝΙΚΟΛΑΙΔΗΣ, D2024-4950 (WIPO Jan. 20, 2025) (finding lack of rights or interests arising from use for fraudulent phishing scheme and to display pay-per-click links); Dollar Tree Stores, Inc. v. Above.com Domain Privacy, supra (finding lack of rights or interests arising from use to generate affiliate or pay-per-click fees).

 

Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name, and Respondent has failed to come forward with any evidence of such rights or interests. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has sustained its burden of proving that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Finally, Complainant must show that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Under paragraph 4(b)(iii) of the Policy, bad faith may be shown by evidence that Respondent registered the disputed domain name "primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor." Under paragraph 4(b)(iv), bad faith may be shown by evidence that "by using the domain name, [Respondent] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [Respondent's] web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [Respondent's] web site or location or of a product or service on [Respondent's] web site or location."

 

Respondent used a privacy registration service to register a domain name incorporating Complainant's registered mark, and has used the domain name to impersonate Complainant in support of a fraudulent scheme. Such circumstances are indicative of bad faith registration and use under the Policy. See, e.g., Generac Power Systems, Inc. v. second second, supra (finding bad faith registration and use in similar circumstances); Canadian Tire Corp., Ltd. v. ΚΛΕΑΝΘΗΣ ΝΙΚΟΛΑΙΔΗΣ, D2024-4950 (WIPO Jan. 20, 2025) (same).

 

The Panel notes that Complainant's reliance on constructive notice is misplaced. Under the Policy, constructive notice is insufficient; bad faith requires at least an inference that the Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant or its mark when registering the domain name. See UDRP Perspectives on Recent Jurisprudence, supra, § 3.4; e.g., SidePrize, LLC d/b/a PrizePicks v. Copamar Partners / Copamar Partners, S.L., FA 2141536 (Forum Mar. 19, 2025). In this case, Respondent engaged in conduct that was obviously targeted at Complainant and its mark shortly after registering the domain name, and the Panel considers an inference of actual knowledge to be entirely appropriate.

 

The Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

 

DECISION

Having considered the three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <dollartreeinc.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

David E. Sorkin, Panelist

Dated: March 27, 2025