Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions |
The Clorox Company v. Daniel Khesin
Claim
Number: FA0304000154103
Complainant is
The Clorox Company, Oakland, CA (“Complainant”) represented
by Bonnie J. Barnish and Scott Gerien, of Owen Wickersham
& Erickson. Respondent is Daniel Khesin, Kew Gardens, NY(“Respondent”).
REGISTRAR
AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The
domain name at issue is <freereadymop.com>, registered with Go
Daddy Software.
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.
The
Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.) as Panelist.
Complainant
submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the "Forum")
electronically on April 4, 2003; the Forum
received a hard copy of the
Complaint on April 7, 2003.
On
April 7, 2003, Go Daddy Software confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the
domain name <freereadymop.com> is registered with Go Daddy
Software and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Go Daddy Software has verified that
Respondent is bound by the Go Daddy Software 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
April 7, 2003, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative
Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"),
setting a deadline of
April 28, 2003 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@freereadymop.com by e-mail.
Having
received no Response from Respondent, using the same contact details and
methods as were used for the Commencement Notification,
the Forum transmitted
to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On
May 6, 2003, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a
single-member Panel, the Forum appointed the Honorable
Charles K. McCotter, Jr.
(Ret.) 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."
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.
Complainant
requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant makes the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s <freereadymop.com>
domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s READYMOP mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or
legitimate interests in the <freereadymop.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <freereadymop.com>
domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in
this proceeding.
Complainant, The
Clorox Company, is the largest U.S. household bleach maker. In January of 2002, Complainant began
marketing a new product for household cleaning called READYMOP. This mop system is sold nationally through
various retail discount stores, wholesalers, and national grocery stores. Since its introduction Complainant’s
READYMOP has become one of Complainant’s top selling products. Complainant promotes its product on TV,
radio, newspaper and the Internet at <cloroxreadymop.com>,
<cloroxreadymops.com>,
<readymops.com> and <readymop.com>.
Complainant
holds trademark registrations for READYMOP with the U.S. Patent and Trademark
Office including Reg. Number 2,578,720 registered
on June 11, 2002; Reg. Number
2,592,691 registered on July 9, 2002; and Reg. Number 2,615,848 registered on
September 3, 2002.
Respondent
registered the <freereadymop.com> domain name on January 14,
2003. Respondent is not making any use
of the disputed domain name. An article
appearing in the February 10, 2003 issue of Advertising Age, quotes
Respondent, Daniel Khesin, stating that his company plans to use the domain
name in a similar fashion as it uses the <freerazors.com>
domain
name. Respondent markets Gillette brand
razors via an opt-in email advertising and free product reward scheme. Internet users sign up for a free Gillette
razor, give Respondent their credit card number, and then are shipped
replacement blades
automatically every two months. Respondent also emails its customers numerous messages regarding
other mail-in and Internet offers. Some
have labeled Respondent’s business as misleading advertising, although no legal
action has been taken as of the writing of this
decision.[1]
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.
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 has
established that it has rights in the READYMOP mark through registration with
the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
Respondent’s
<freereadymop.com> domain name is confusingly similar to
Complainant’s READYMOP mark because it incorporates Complainant’s entire mark
and merely
adds the descriptive term “free.”
The addition of a descriptive term such as “free” to Complainant’s
well-known READYMOP mark does not distinguish Respondent’s domain
name in a
manner capable of overcoming a claim of confusing similarity. See Pfizer, Inc. v. Papol Suger,
D2002-0187 (WIPO Apr. 24, 2002) (finding that because the subject domain name
incorporates the VIAGRA mark in its entirety, and
deviates only by the addition
of the word “bomb,” the domain name is rendered confusingly similar to
Complainant’s mark); see also Westfield
Corp., Inc. v. Hobbs, D2000-0227 (WIPO May 18, 2000) (finding the
<westfieldshopping.com> domain name confusingly similar because the
WESTFIELD
mark was the dominant element).
Accordingly, the
Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Respondent
has failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. Thus, the Panel is permitted to accept all reasonable allegations
and inferences in the Complaint as true.
See Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA
95095 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 31, 2000) (failure to respond allows all reasonable
inferences of fact in the allegations of Complainant
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”).
Moreover,
Respondent has failed to invoke any circumstances that could demonstrate rights
and legitimate interests in the domain name.
When Complainant asserts a prima facie case against Respondent,
the burden of proof shifts to Respondent to show that it has rights or
legitimate interests pursuant to
Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000-0624 (WIPO
Aug. 21, 2000) (finding that once Complainant asserts that Respondent has no
rights or legitimate interests with
respect to the domain, the burden shifts to
Respondent to provide credible evidence that substantiates its claim of rights
and legitimate
interests in the domain name); see also Parfums Christian Dior v. QTR Corp.,
D2000-0023 (WIPO Mar. 9, 2000) (finding that by not submitting a response, the
Respondent has failed to invoke any circumstance
that could demonstrate any
rights or legitimate interests in the domain name).
Respondent is
not using the <freereadymop.com> domain name for any purpose. Respondent reportedly claims that it plans
to use the domain name to market Complainant’s READYMOP product, as well as
other online
and mail-in offers. The
Panel infers, based on Respondent’s use of <freerazor.com> to confuse and
divert Internet users interested in Gillette products,
that Respondent intends
to use <freereadymop.com> to divert Internet users interested in
Complainant’s READYMOP brand product to Respondent’s website. Thus, the Panel finds that Respondent is not
engaging in a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶
4(c)(i), nor
a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶
4(c)(iii). See Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n v. Halpern,
D2000-0700 (WIPO Dec. 10, 2000) (finding that domain names used to sell
Complainant’s goods without Complainant’s authority, as
well as others’ goods,
is not bona fide use); see also Chanel,
Inc. v. Cologne Zone, D2000-1809 (WIPO Feb. 22, 2001) (finding that use of
Complainant’s mark to sell Complainant’s perfume, as well as other brands of
perfume, is not bona fide use).
Respondent,
Daniel Khesin, is not commonly known as FREE READYMOP or <freereadymop.com>. Respondent has been doing business as
<freerazor.com> and therefore has become known by that domain name, not
the <freereadymop.com> domain name at issue in this
proceeding. Thus, the Panel finds that
Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <freereadymop.com>
domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
See 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); see
also 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").
Accordingly, the
Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Respondent had
actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the READYMOP mark when it
registered the <freereadymop.com> domain name. Registration of an infringing domain name,
despite actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights, is evidence of bad faith
pursuant to
Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See
Entrepreneur Media, Inc. v. Smith, [2002] USCA9 115; 279 F.3d 1135, 1148 (9th Cir. Feb.
11, 2002) (finding that "[w]here an alleged infringer chooses a mark he
knows to be similar to another, one can
infer an intent to confuse"); see
also Digi Int’l v. DDI Sys., FA 124506 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 24,
2002) (holding that “there is a legal presumption of bad faith, when Respondent
reasonably should
have been aware of Complainant’s trademarks, actually or
constructively”).
Respondent is
not currently using the domain name; however, based on the evidence submitted
it is apparent that the domain name was
registered to attract Internet users
interested in Complainant’s READYMOP product.
Based on this information, the Panel infers that Respondent registered
the domain name with the intent to profit from the Internet
user confusion that
would result from the use of the <freereadymop.com> domain name,
which is evidence of bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). Moreover, the domain name evidences
opportunistic bad faith on the part of Respondent. See Perot Sys. Corp.
v. Perot.net, FA 95312 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 29, 2000) (finding bad faith
where the domain name in question is obviously connected with the Complainant’s
well-known marks, thus creating a likelihood of confusion strictly for
commercial gain); see also Phat
Fashions v. Kruger, FA 96193 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 29, 2000) (finding bad
faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) even though Respondent has not used the domain
name because “It makes no sense whatever to wait until it actually ‘uses’ the
name, when inevitably, when there is such use, it will
create the confusion
described in the Policy”).
Thus, the Panel
finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been satisfied.
Having
established all three elements required under ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes
that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it
is Ordered that the <freereadymop.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED
from Respondent to Complainant.
The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr.
(Ret.), Panelist
Dated:
May 13, 2003
WorldLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/GENDND/2003/488.html