DECISION

 

HomeGoods, Inc. v. jiahongnetwork / jiahongnetwork jiahongnetwork

Claim Number: FA2004001893706

 

PARTIES

Complainant is HomeGoods, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Mary Grace Gallagher of Alston & Bird, LLP, Georgia, USA.  Respondent is jiahongnetwork / jiahongnetwork jiahongnetwork (“Respondent”), China.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <home-goods.shop>, registered with NameSilo, LLC.

 

PANEL

The undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.

 

Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on April 27, 2020; the Forum received payment on April 27, 2020.

 

On April 27, 2020, NameSilo, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <home-goods.shop> domain name is registered with NameSilo, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name.  NameSilo, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameSilo, 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 April 28, 2020, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of May 18, 2020 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@home-goods.shop.  Also on April 28, 2020, 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, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

 

On May 21, 2020, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist.

 

Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the 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, the 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.    Respondent’s <home-goods.shop> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s HOMEGOODS mark.

 

2.    Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <home-goods.shop> domain name.

 

3.    Respondent registered and uses the <home-goods.shop> domain name in bad faith.

 

B.  Respondent failed to file a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant, HomeGoods, Inc., is a discounted retail store featuring a variety of household products.  Complainant holds a registration for the HOMEGOODS mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 1,955,706, registered Feb. 13, 1996).

 

Respondent registered the <home-goods.shop> domain name on December 5, 2019, and uses it to resolve to a website that offers competing household products.

 

DISCUSSION

Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted 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 Complainant has rights in the HOMEGOODS mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). based upon its registration of the mark with the USPTO.  See Nintendo of America Inc. v. lin amy, FA 1818485 (Forum Dec. 24, 2018) ("Complainant’s ownership a USPTO trademark registration for the NINTENDO mark evidences Complainant’s rights in such mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)”). 

 

Respondent’s <home-goods.shop> domain name wholly incorporates Complainant’s HOMEGOODS mark, and adds a hyphen and the “.shop” gTLD.  Adding hyphens and a gTLD to a mark does not distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See UBS AG v. Jouet Daniels, FA 1783500 (Forum May 30, 2018) (“Addition of hyphens does not distinguish a domain name from a mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”); see also Dell Inc. v. pushpender chauhan, FA 1784548 (Forum June 11, 2018) (“Respondent merely adds the term ‘supports’ and a ‘.org’ gTLD to the DELL mark. Thus, the Panel finds Respondent’s disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s DELL mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)”).  Thus, the Panel finds that Respondent’s <home-goods.shop> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s HOMEGOODS mark.

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Once Complainant makes a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)); see also Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) (“Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests”).

 

Complainant claims that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <home-goods.shop> domain name because Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant’s HOMEGOODS mark and is not commonly known by the domain name.  The WHOIS information of record notes “jiahongnetwork/ jiahongnetwork jiahongnetwork” as the registrant of the disputed domain name.  Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name, and thus has no rights under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).  See H-D U.S.A., LLC, v. ilyas Aslan / uok / Domain Admin  ContactID 5645550 / FBS INC / Whoisprotection biz, FA 1785313 (Forum June 25, 2018) (“The publicly available WHOIS information identifies Respondent as ‘Ilyas Aslan’ and so there is no prima facie evidence that Respondent might be commonly known by either of the [<harleybot.bid> and <harleybot.com>] domain names.”); see also Navistar International Corporation v. N Rahmany, FA1505001620789 (Forum June 8, 2015) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name where the complainant had never authorized the respondent to incorporate its NAVISTAR mark in any domain name registration).

 

Complainant argues that Respondent does not use the <home-goods.shop> domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use because the domain name resolves to a website selling competing household goods and services.  The use of a disputed domain name to sell products and/or services that compete with a complainant’s business does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).  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 provides screenshots of the website at <home-goods.shop> which offers a variety of household products for sale that directly compete with Complainant’s business.  The Panel finds that this use is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, and thus Respondent has no rights under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Complainant argues that Respondent registered and uses the <home-goods.shop> domain name in bad faith by diverting users to its commercial website offering competing goods for sale.  The use of a domain name to divert Internet users to Respondent’s website to offer competing products evinces bad faith registration and use per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).  See Xylem Inc. and Xylem IP Holdings LLC v. YinSi BaoHu YiKaiQi, FA1504001612750 (Forum May 13, 2015) (“The Panel agrees that Respondent’s use of the website to display products similar to Complainant’s, imputes intent to attract Internet users for commercial gain, and finds bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).”).  Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).

 

Complainant argues that Respondent must have had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights due to the fame of the HOMEGOODS mark, Respondent’s use of the mark in its entirety, and Respondent’s use of the domain name to feature competing products.  The Panel agrees and finds bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).  See iFinex Inc. v. xu shuaiwei, FA 1760249 (Forum January 1, 2018) (“Respondent’s prior knowledge is evident from the notoriety of Complainant’s BITFINEX trademark as well as from Respondent’s use of its trademark laden domain name to direct internet traffic to a website which is a direct competitor of Complainant”).

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied 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 <home-goods.shop> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist

Dated:  May 22, 2020

 

 

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page