Caterpillar Inc. v. Admin c/o Jucco Holdings
Claim Number: FA0603000662210
Complainant is Caterpillar Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Mark Sommers, of Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, L.L.P., 901 New York Avenue Nw, Washington, DC 20001. Respondent is Admin c/o Jucco Holdings (“Respondent”), 655 Flower St. #337, Los Angeles, CA 90017.
REGISTRAR
AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <catatwork.com>, registered with Nameking.com, Inc.
The undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his or her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Judge Harold Kalina (Ret.) as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on March 17, 2006; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on March 20, 2006.
On March 17, 2006, Nameking.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <catatwork.com> domain name is registered with Nameking.com, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Nameking.com, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Nameking.com, Inc. registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy").
On March 21, 2006, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of April 10, 2006 by which Respondent could file a response to the Complaint, was transmitted to Respondent via e-mail, post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts, and to postmaster@catatwork.com by e-mail.
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On April 14, 2006, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Judge Harold Kalina (Ret.) as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the National Arbitration 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." Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the National Arbitration Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant makes the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s <catatwork.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s CAT mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <catatwork.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <catatwork.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Caterpillar Inc., manufactures, sells, and distributes a wide assortment of heavy-industry equipment, including excavators, mining shovels and backhoe loaders. Complainant is a Fortune 100 company and is the world’s largest manufacturer of construction and mining equipment. In 1948, Complainant first used the CAT mark in connection with its business, and it has done so continuously since then. Complainant has registered the CAT mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 564,272 issued September 23, 1952). Complainant has also registered the CATERPILLAR mark with the USPTO, and maintains websites in connection with its business under the <caterpillar.com>, <cat.com> and <catatwork.cat.com> domain names.
Respondent registered the <catatwork.com> domain name on December 2, 2003. Internet users who access this domain name are directed to a website that features links to websites offering Complainant’s products and competitors’ products. Respondent’s website contains numerous references to Complainant’s name and marks.
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."
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(e), 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 and inferences set forth in the Complaint as true unless the evidence is clearly contradictory. See Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 31, 2000) (holding that the respondent’s failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of the complaint to be deemed true); see also Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009 (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000) (“In the absence of a response, it is appropriate to accept as true all allegations of the Complaint.”).
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.
Complainant, by registering the CAT mark with the USPTO, has established rights in this mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Vivendi Universal Games v. XBNetVentures Inc., FA 198803 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 11, 2003) (“Complainant's federal trademark registrations establish Complainant's rights in the BLIZZARD mark.”); see also U.S. Office of Pers. Mgmt. v. MS Tech. Inc., FA 198898 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 9, 2003) (“[O]nce the USPTO has made a determination that a mark is registrable, by so issuing a registration, as indeed was the case here, an ICANN panel is not empowered to nor should it disturb that determination.”).
Respondent’s <catatwork.com> domain name incorporates Complainant’s CAT mark in its entirety in addition to two descriptive terms and the top-level domain “.com.” Because top-level domains are required in all domain names, the addition of a top-level domain does not distinguish the disputed domain name from Complainant’s mark. See Pomellato S.p.A v. Tonetti, D2000-0493 (WIPO July 7, 2000) (finding <pomellato.com> identical to the complainant’s mark because the generic top-level domain (gTLD) “.com” after the name POMELLATO is not relevant). Moreover, the addition of descriptive terms to Complainant’s mark also fails to distinguish the disputed domain name from Complainant’s mark. See Quixtar Inv., Inc. v. Smithberger, D2000-0138 (WIPO Apr. 19, 2000) (finding that because the domain name <quixtar-sign-up.com> incorporates in its entirety the complainant’s distinctive mark, QUIXTAR, the domain name is confusingly similar).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Once Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, the burden shifts to Respondent to prove that it does have rights or legitimate interests under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See Compagnie Generale des Matieres Nucleaires v. Greenpeace Int’l, D2001-0376 (WIPO May 14, 2001) (“Proving that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name requires the Complainant to prove a negative. For the purposes of this sub paragraph, however, it is sufficient for the Complainant to show a prima facie case and the burden of proof is then shifted on to the shoulders of Respondent. In those circumstances, the common approach is for respondents to seek to bring themselves within one of the examples of paragraph 4(c) or put forward some other reason why they can fairly be said to have a relevant right or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name in question). Complainant has presented a prima facie case, and, despite Respondent’s failure to respond, the Panel will consider whether the evaluation of the evidence demonstrates rights or legitimate interests under Policy ¶ 4(c).
Respondent’s <catatwork.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s CAT mark. Internet users who access this domain name are directed to a generic search-engine website featuring links to websites offering Complainant’s products and products offered by Complainant’s competitors. The Panel presumes Respondent receives click-through fees in exchange for diverting Internet users to these other websites. Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name is not in connection with 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). See Seiko Kabushiki Kaisha v. CS into Tech, FA 198795 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 6, 2003) (“Diverting customers, who are looking for products relating to the famous SEIKO mark, to a website unrelated to the mark is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor does it represent a noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”); see also Golden Bear Int’l, Inc. v. Kangdeock-ho, FA 190644 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 17, 2003) (“Respondent's use of a domain name confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark to divert Internet users to websites unrelated to Complainant's business does not represent 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).”).
There is no evidence on record that Respondent has ever been commonly known by the <catatwork.com> domain name, or that Respondent is affiliated with Complainant. Furthermore, the WHOIS database contains no information implying that Respondent is commonly known by the <catatwork.com> domain name. The Panel infers that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in this domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See RMO, Inc. v. Burbridge, FA 96949 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 16, 2001) (interpreting Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) "to require a showing that one has been commonly known by the domain name prior to registration of the domain name to prevail"); see also Tercent Inc. v. Lee Yi, FA 139720 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 10, 2003) (stating “nothing in Respondent’s WHOIS information implies that Respondent is ‘commonly known by’ the disputed domain name” as one factor in determining that Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) does not apply).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Respondent uses the <catatwork.com>
domain name, which incorporates Complainant’s CAT mark, to present Internet
users with links to products offered by Complainant and Complainant’s
competitors. Respondent’s website also
features several references to Complainant by name, which combined with
Respondent’s confusingly similar domain name, may confuse Internet users about
the relationship between Complainant and Respondent. Respondent most likely receives click-through fees in return for
directing Internet users to other websites.
The Panel finds that Respondent is taking advantage of the confusion
between Complainant and itself for its own commercial gain. Such use of the disputed domain name
constitutes bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Gardens Alive, Inc. v. D&S Linx, FA 203126 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 20, 2003) (“Respondent
registered and used the <my-seasons.com> domain name in bad faith
pursuant to Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv) because Respondent is using a domain
name that is confusingly similar to the MYSEASONS mark for commercial benefit
by diverting Internet users to the <thumbgreen.com> website, which sells
competing goods and services.”); see
also Amazon.com,
Inc. v. Shafir, FA 196119 (Nat. Arb. Forum
Nov. 10, 2003) (“As Respondent is using the domain name at issue in direct
competition with Complainant, and giving the impression of being affiliated
with or sponsored by Complainant, this circumstance qualifies as bad faith
registration and use of the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).”).
Respondent’s website, which
includes several uses of Complainant’s mark, contains several links to websites
offering products in direct competition with Complainant. Additionally, Respondent’s domain name
incorporates Complainant’s mark in its entirety. The Panel determines that Respondent’s use of Complainant’s mark
to divert Internet users to Complainant’s competitors amounts to disruption of
Complainant’s business under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See Puckett v. Miller,
D2000-0297 (WIPO June 12, 2000) (finding that the respondent has diverted
business from the complainant to a competitor’s website in violation of Policy
¶ 4(b)(iii)); see also EBAY, Inc. v. MEOdesigns, D2000-1368
(Dec. 15, 2000) (finding that the respondent registered and used the domain
name <eebay.com> in bad faith where the respondent has used the domain
name to promote competing auction sites).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been satisfied.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <catatwork.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Judge Harold Kalina (Ret.), Panelist
Dated: April 28, 2006
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum