DECISION

SmartBargains.com, L.P. v. Henry Tsung

Claim Number:  FA0408000313576

PARTIES

Complainant is SmartBargains.com, L.P. (“Complainant”), represented by Sean F. Heneghan, 31 Reading Hill Avenue, Melrose, MA 02176.  Respondent is Henry Tsung  (“Respondent”), No. 2, Alley 4, Lane 177, Swei Rd., Tapei, 356021, Taiwan.

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <wwwsmartbargain.com>, registered with Iholdings.com, Inc. d/b/a Dotregistrar.com.

PANEL

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.

Honorable Paul A. Dorf (Ret.) as Panelist.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the "Forum") electronically on August 14, 2004; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on August 16, 2004.

On August 17, 2004, Iholdings.com, Inc. d/b/a Dotregistrar.com confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name <wwwsmartbargain.com> is registered with Iholdings.com, Inc. d/b/a Dotregistrar.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Iholdings.com, Inc. d/b/a Dotregistrar.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the Iholdings.com, Inc. d/b/a Dotregistrar.com 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 August 19, 2004, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of September 8, 2004 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@wwwsmartbargain.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 September 14, 2004, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Honorable Paul A. Dorf (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.

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A.  Complainant makes the following assertions:

1. Respondent’s <wwwsmartbargain.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s SMARTBARGAINS mark.

2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <wwwsmartbargain.com> domain name.

3. Respondent registered and used the <wwwsmartbargain.com> domain name in bad faith.

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

FINDINGS

Complainant, SmartBargains.com, L.P., is a wholly owned subsidiary of SmartBargains, Inc.  Since as early as June 2, 2000, Complainant has used the SMARTBARGAINS mark in connection with on-line retail store services, offering high-quality, brand-name merchandise at discount prices.  Complainant specializes in a wide range of products, from apparel and accessories to fine jewelry, electronics and home furnishings.  Complainant is the owner of the SMARTBARGAINS mark by and through assignment from its predecessor in interest, SmartBargains, Inc. (Reg. No. 2,672,735, issued January 7, 2003, Reg. No. 2,606,658, issued August 13, 2002 and Reg. No. 2,676,170, issued January 21, 2003).  Complainant also owns trademark registration rights for its SMARTBARGAINS mark in the European Union (Reg. No. 1,960,558, issued May 6, 2002).

Respondent registered the <wwwsmartbargain.com> domain name on January 23, 2004.  Respondent is currently using the disputed domain name to redirect Internet users to the pay-per-click search service <domainsponsor.com>, prominently featuring pop-up advertisements and links to websites offering various commercial products and services.  Respondent has a history of registering and using domain names incorporating trademarks of third parties.  See Travelers Express Company, Inc. v. Henry Tsung, FA 275511 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 7, 2004) (Bad faith found based on registration and use of <wwwmoneygram.com>); see also Trustmark National Bank v. Henry Tsung, D2004-0274 (WIPO June 4, 2004) (Bad faith found based on registration and use of <wwwtrustmark.com>); see also Bausch & Lomb Inc. v. Henry Tsung, FA 247973 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 5, 2004) (Bad faith found based on registration and use of <occuvite.com>); see also First Tennessee National Corporation v. Henry Tsung, D2004-0103 (WIPO April 22, 2004) (Bad faith found based on registration and use of <firsthorizonmorgage.com>); see also The Neiman Marcus Group, Inc. v. Henry Tsung, FA 243464 (Nat. Arb. Forum April 6, 2004) (Bad faith found based on registration and use of <neimanmarcusa.com>); see also America West Airlines, Inc. v. Henry Tsung, FA 232953 (Nat. Arb. Forum March 16, 2004) (Bad faith found based on registration and use of <americawestvacatons.com>); see also Whitney National Bank v. Henry Tsung, FA 227652 (Nat. Arb. Forum March 3, 2004) (Bad faith found based on registration and use of  <wwwwhitneybank.com>).

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."

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.

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

Complainant has established in this proceeding that it has rights to the SMARTBARGAINS mark as evidenced by its registration with the USPTO and the European Union.  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 Janus Int’l Holding Co. v. Rademacher, D2002-0201 (WIPO Mar. 5, 2002) (finding that Panel decisions have held that registration of a mark is prima facie evidence of validity, which creates a rebuttable presumption that the mark is inherently distinctive.  Respondent has the burden of refuting this assumption).

The domain name registered by Respondent, <wwwsmartbargain.com>, is confusingly similar to Complainant’s SMARTBARGAINS mark because the only difference between the two is the omission of the period after the letters “www” and the omission of the last letter “s” from “smartbargains.”  These minor omissions and typographical errors do not significantly distinguish the domain name from the mark.  See Bank of Am. Corp. v. InterMos, FA 95092 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 1, 2000) (finding that Respondent’s domain name <wwwbankofamerica.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant’s registered trademark BANK OF AMERICA because it “takes advantage of a typing error (eliminating the period between the www and the domain name) that users commonly make when searching on the Internet”); see also Marie Claire Album v. Blakely, D2002-1015 (WIPO Dec. 23, 2002) (holding that the letters "www" are not distinct in the "Internet world" and thus Respondent 's <wwwmarieclaire.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's MARIE CLAIRE trademark); see also Neiman Marcus Group, Inc. v. S1A, FA 128683 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 6, 2002) (holding confusing similarity has been established because the prefix "www" does not sufficiently differentiate the <wwwneimanmarcus.com> domain name from Complainant's NEIMAN-MARCUS mark); see also Universal City Studios, Inc. v. HarperStephens, D2000-0716 (WIPO Sept. 5, 2000) (finding that deleting the letter “s” from Complainant’s UNIVERSAL STUDIOS STORE mark did not change the overall impression of the mark and thus made the disputed domain name confusingly similar to it);.

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

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant has alleged that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name that contains Complainant’s mark. Due to Respondent’s failure to respond to the Complaint, the Panel will assume that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. In fact, once Complainant makes a prima facie case in support of its allegations, the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have such rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See G.D. Searle v. Martin Mktg., FA 118277 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 1, 2002) (holding that where Complainant has 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 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).

Moreover, where Complainant makes the prima facie showing and Respondent does not respond, the Panel may accept all reasonable allegations and inferences in the Complaint as true. See 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 Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 31, 2000) (holding that Respondent’s failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of Complainant to be deemed true).

Respondent is using the <wwwsmartbargain.com> domain name to redirect Internet users to a website that features advertising for a variety of goods and that hosts a popular search engine to link internet users to a variety of websites, including sites that offer the same type of goods that Complainant offers.  Respondent’s use of a domain name that is confusingly similar to Complainant’s SMARTBARGAINS mark to redirect Internet users interested in Complainant’s products to a commercial website that offers a popular pay-per-click search engine and pop-up ads for products similar to those offered by Complainant is not a use in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and it is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Bank of America Corp. v. Out Island Props., Inc., FA 154531 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 3, 2003) (holding that Respondent’s use of infringing domain names to direct Internet traffic to a search engine website that hosted pop-up advertisements was evidence that it lacked rights or legitimate interests in the domain name); see also Geoffrey, Inc. v. Toyrus.com, FA 150406 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 5, 2003) (holding that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name, a simple misspelling of Complainant’s mark, to divert Internet users to a website that featured pop-up advertisements and an Internet directory, was neither a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name); see also; see also U.S. Franchise Sys., Inc. v. Howell, FA 152457 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 6, 2003) (holding that Respondent’s use of Complainant’s mark and the goodwill surrounding that mark as a means of attracting Internet users to an unrelated business was not a bona fide offering of goods or services).

Moreover, Respondent offered no evidence and no proof in the record suggests that Respondent is commonly known by the <wwwsmartbargain.com> domain name. Thus, Respondent has not established rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Compagnie de Saint Gobain v. Com-Union Corp., D2000-0020 (WIPO Mar. 14, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where Respondent was not commonly known by the mark and never applied for a license or permission from Complainant to use the trademarked name); see also Broadcom Corp. v. Intellifone Corp., FA 96356 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 5, 2001) (finding no rights or legitimate interests because Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name or using the domain name in connection with a legitimate or fair use).

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

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Respondent registered the domain name for commercial gain. Respondent’s <wwwsmartbargain.com> domain name, incorporating Complainant’s well-known mark, resolves to a popular pay-per-click search engine and provides links and pop-up ads to other vendors offering the same products as Complainant.  Respondent’s practice of diversion, motivated by commercial gain, through the use of a confusingly similar domain name evidences bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). 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 Complainant’s well-known marks, thus creating a likelihood of confusion strictly for commercial gain); see also WeddingChannel.com Inc. v. Vasiliev, FA 156716 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 12, 2003) (finding that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to redirect Internet users to websites unrelated to Complainant’s mark, websites where Respondent presumably receives a referral fee for each misdirected Internet user, was not a bona fide offering of goods or services as contemplated by the Policy); see also Pioneer Hi-Bred Int’l Inc. v. Chan, FA 154119 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 12, 2003) (finding that Respondent did not have rights or legitimate interests in a domain name that used Complainant’s mark and redirected Internet users to website that pays domain name registrants for referring those users to its search engine and pop-up advertisements); see also Bank of America Corp. v. Out Island Props., Inc., FA 154531 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 3, 2003) (finding that Respondent’s use of infringing domain names to direct Internet traffic to a search engine website that hosted pop-up advertisements was evidence that it lacked rights or legitimate interests in the domain name).

Furthermore, while each of the four circumstances listed under Policy ¶ 4(b), if proven, evidences bad faith use and registration of a domain name, additional factors can also be used to support findings of bad faith registration and use.  See Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. v. Risser, FA 93761 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 18, 2000) (finding that in determining if a domain name has been registered in bad faith, the Panel must look at the “totality of circumstances”); see also Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000-0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (“the examples [of bad faith] in Paragraph 4(b) are intended to be illustrative, rather than exclusive”).

Additionally, Respondent has engaged in similar conduct with respect to registering domain names containing misspellings of the trademarks of third parties.  The Panel finds Respondent’s history of typosquatting evidences bad faith registration pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).  See L.L. Bean, Inc. v. Cupcake Patrol, FA 96504 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 12, 2001) (finding that Respondent acted in bad faith by establishing a pattern of registering misspellings of famous trademarks and names); see also 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 Canadian Tire Corp., Ltd. v. domain adm’r no.valid.email@worldnic.net 1111111111, D2003-0232 (WIPO May 22, 2003) (holding that “[t] absence of a dot between the ‘www’  and ‘canadiantire.com’ [in the <wwwcanadiantire.com> domain name is] likely to confuse Internet users, encourage them to access Respondent’s site” and evidenced bad faith registration and use of the domain name); see also Black & Decker Corp. v. Azra Khan, FA 137223 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 3, 2003) (finding the <wwwdewalt.com> domain name was registered to “ensnare those individuals who forget to type the period after the “www” portion of [a] web-address,” evidence that the domain name was registered and used in bad faith).

The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been satisfied.

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 <wwwsmartbargain.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

Honorable Paul A. Dorf (Ret.), Panelist

Dated:  September 22, 2004

---

WorldLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/GENDND/2004/1161.html