Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions |
PC Connection, Inc. v. [domain name
holder]
Claim
Number: FA0305000158429
Complainant is PC Connection, Inc., Merrimack, NH
(“Complainant”). Respondent is [domain name holder] (“Respondent”).
REGISTRAR
AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The
domain name at issue is <pcconection.com>, registered with Tucows,
Inc.
The
undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and that
to the best of her knowledge she has no known
conflict in serving as Panelist
in this proceeding. Hon. Carolyn Marks Johnson sits as Panelist.
Complainant
submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the "Forum")
electronically on May 21, 2003; the Forum
received a hard copy of the Complaint
on May 27, 2003.
On
May 22, 2003, Tucows, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain
name <pcconection.com> is registered with Tucows, Inc. and that
Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Tucows, Inc., verified that
Respondent
is bound by the Tucows, Inc., registration agreement and 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
June 12, 2003, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative
Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"),
setting a deadline of
July 2, 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@ pcconection.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
July 11, 2003, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by
a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Hon.
Carolyn Marks Johnson 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. The domain name registered by Respondent,
<pcconection.com>, is confusingly similar to Complainant’s family
of marks.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or
legitimate interests in the <pcconection.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <pcconection.com>
domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in
this proceeding.
Complainant, PC
Connection, Inc., is the holder of numerous registrations around the world for
its PC CONNECTION family of marks. The
PC CONNECTION family of marks held by Complainant that are registered on the
Principal Register include United States Patent and
Trademark Office
Registration Nos. 1,268,322, registered on February 21, 1984 and 1,721,844,
registered on October 6, 1992, for PC
CONNECTION. Complainant also holds a registration on the Principal Register
for PC CONNECTION.COM, which is United States Patent and Trademark
Office
Registration No. 2,437,186, registered March 20, 2001.
Complainant has
used its PC CONNECTION family of marks continuously since 1982 to promote the
sale of computers, software and peripherals.
Since 1996, Complainant has marketed and sold these products through its
website located at the <pcconnection.com> domain name.
Respondent
registered the <pcconection.com> domain name November 13,
2001. Respondent is using the disputed
domain name to sell computers, software, and peripherals.
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
will draw such inferences as the Panel 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
established in this proceeding that it has rights in the PC CONNECTION family
of marks through registration of its mark
on the Principal Register at the
United States Patent and Trademark Office, and by continuous use in commerce
since 1982. See Men’s Wearhouse,
Inc. v. Wick, FA 117861 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 16, 2002) (“Under U.S.
trademark law, registered marks hold a presumption that they are inherently
distinctive and have acquired secondary meaning”); see also Fishtech v. Rossiter, FA 92976 (Nat.
Arb. Forum Mar. 10, 2000) (finding Complainant has common law rights in the
mark FISHTECH it has used since 1982).
The domain name
registered by Respondent, <pcconection.com>, is confusingly
similar to Complainant’s PC CONNECTION family of marks. Respondent merely misspelled Complainant’s
mark by omitting a single letter “n” in the middle of the word CONNECTION. Such a difference is insufficient to create
a domain name that is distinct from Complainant’s family of marks under Policy
¶ 4(a)(i). See Compaq Info. Techs.
Group, L.P. v. Seocho , FA 103879
(Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 25, 2002) (finding that the domain name
<compq.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant’s COMPAQ mark because
the omission of the letter “a” in the domain
name does not significantly change
the overall impression of the mark); see also State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v.
Try Harder & Co., FA 94730 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 15, 2000) (finding
that the domain name <statfarm.com> is confusingly similar to
Complainant’s
STATE FARM mark).
Accordingly, the
Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been established.
Complainant has
established in this proceeding that it has rights to and legitimate interests
in the mark. Respondent did not submit
a Response. In the absence of a
Response, the Panel may accept all reasonable allegations submitted by
Complainant as true. Furthermore, the
Panel views Respondent’s failure to respond to the Complaint as an indication
that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate
interests in the disputed domain
name. See G.D. Searle v. Martin
Mktg., FA 118277 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 1, 2002) (holding that where
Complainant asserted that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests
with
respect to the domain name, it is incumbent on Respondent to come forward with
concrete evidence rebutting this assertion because
this information is
“uniquely within the knowledge and control of the respondent.”); 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”);
see also BIC Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG v. Tweed,
D2000-0418 (WIPO June 20, 2000) (“By not submitting a response, Respondent has
failed to invoke any circumstance which could demonstrate,
pursuant to ¶ 4(c) of
the Policy, any rights or legitimate interests in the domain name.”).
No evidence
before the Panel suggests that Respondent is commonly known by the <pcconection.com>
domain name. The WHOIS contact information does not indicate that Respondent is
commonly known by the disputed domain name.
Thus, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights to or legitimate
interests in the disputed 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)
(i 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").
Respondent is
using the <pcconection.com> domain name to attract Internet users
who misspell Complainant’s mark to Respondent’s competing website. Respondent is selling computers, software,
and peripherals at the website associated with the disputed domain name. Thus, the Panel finds that Respondent is not
using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods
or services
under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and it is not making a legitimate
noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. v. Zuccarini, D2000-0330 (WIPO June
7, 2000) (finding that fair use does not apply where the domain names are
misspellings of Complainant's mark);
see also Computerized Sec. Sys., Inc.
d/b/a SAFLOK v. Bennie Hu, FA 157321 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 23, 2003)
(holding that Respondent’s appropriation of Complainant’s mark to market
products that
compete with Complainant’s goods does not constitute a bona fide
offering of goods and services); see also Chip Merch., Inc. v. Blue Star Elec., D2000-0474 (WIPO Aug. 21,
2000) (finding that the disputed domain names were confusingly similar to
Complainant’s mark and that
Respondent’s use of the domain names to sell
competing goods was illegitimate and not a bona fide offering of goods).
Accordingly, the Panel finds that Policy
¶ 4(a)(ii) has been established.
Respondent is
engaged in typosquatting. Respondent is
diverting Internet users who misspell Complainant’s mark to a website sponsored
by Respondent for Respondent’s commercial
gain. Typosquatting is recognized as bad faith use of a domain name
under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Nat’l
Ass’n of Prof’l Baseball Leagues v.
Zuccarini, D2002-1011 (WIPO Jan. 21, 2003) (“Typosquatting is the
intentional misspelling of words with intent to intercept and siphon off
traffic from its intended destination, by preying on Internauts who make common
typing errors. Typosquatting is
inherently parasitic and of itself evidence of bad faith”); see also Kmart
v. Kahn, FA 127708 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 22, 2002) (finding that if
Respondent profits from its diversionary use of Complainant's mark when
the
domain name resolves to commercial websites and Respondent fails to contest the
Complaint, it may be concluded that Respondent
is using the domain name in bad
faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)).
Respondent is
intentionally attempting to attract for commercial gain Internet users who are
familiar with Complainant’s services
but who inadvertently misspell
Complainant’s mark. Respondent creates
a likelihood of confusion as to the sponsorship of Respondent’s website when
Internet users have either accidentally
typed the PC CONNECTION mark
incorrectly or have mistaken Respondent’s website for that of Complainant. Thus, the Panel finds that Respondent
registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith, pursuant to Policy ¶
4(b)(iv). See Computerized Sec.
Sys., Inc. d/b/a SAFLOK v. Bennie Hu, FA 157321 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 23,
2003) (finding that Respondent’s use of the <saflock.com> domain name to
offer goods competing
with Complainant’s illustrates Respondent’s bad faith
registration and use of the domain name pursuant to Policy 4(b)(iv)); see
also Fossil Inc. v. NAS, FA 92525
(Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 23, 2000) (finding that Respondent acted in bad faith by
registering the <fossilwatch.com>
domain name and using it to sell
various watch brands where Respondent was not authorized to sell Complainant’s
goods); see also Busy Body, Inc.
v. Fitness Outlet, Inc., D2000-0127 WIPO Apr. 22, 2000) (finding bad faith
where Respondent attempted to attract customers to its website,
<efitnesswholesale.com>,
and created confusion by offering similar
products for sale as Complainant).
Accordingly, the
Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been established.
Having
established all three elements required under ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes
that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it
is Ordered that the <pcconection.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED
from Respondent to Complainant.
Hon. Carolyn Marks Johnson, Panelist
Dated: July 25, 2003.
WorldLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/GENDND/2003/779.html