Allamericancomponents.com

The timeline behind allamericancomponents.com

Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.

Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.

NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM DECISION All American Semiconductor, Inc. v Russell Allen Claim Number: FA0503000433153 PARTIES Complainant is All American Semiconductor, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Dominique R. Shelton, of Folger, Levin and Kahn, LLP, 1900 Avenue of the Stars, Floor 28, Los Angeles, CA 90067. Respondent is Russell Allen (“Respondent”), 1324 N. Liberty Lake Rd. #205, Liberty Lake, WA 99019. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <allamericancomponents.com>, registered with Network Solutions, Inc. 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. Tyrus R. Atkinson, Jr., as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on February 28, 2005; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on March 2, 2005. On March 8, 2005, Network Solutions, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the domain name <allamericancomponents.com> is registered with Network Solutions, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Network Solutions, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Network Solutions, 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 8, 2005, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of March 28, 2005 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@allamericancomponents.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 National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On April 1, 2005, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Tyrus R. Atkinson, Jr., 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. 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 <allamericancomponents.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ALL AMERICAN mark. 2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <allamericancomponents.com> domain name. 3. Respondent registered and used the <allamericancomponents.com> domain name in bad faith. B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant, All American Semiconductor, Inc., has used the ALL AMERICAN mark in association with the distribution of electronic components continuously in commerce since 1964. Complainant has registered the ALL AMERICAN mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 1,440,294 issued May 19, 1987). Respondent registered the <allamericancomponents.com> domain name on February 24, 2004. Respondent’s domain name resolves to a website that offers competing high technology electronic components in direct competition with Complainant. 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 rights in the ALL AMERICAN mark through registration of the mark with the USPTO and through continuous use of the mark in commerce since 1964. 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 Am. Online, Inc. v. Thomas P. Culver Enters., D2001-0564 (WIPO June 18, 2001) (finding that successful trademark registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office creates a presumption of rights in a mark). Respondent’s <allamericancomponents.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ALL AMERICAN mark. Respondent’s domain name incorporates Complainant’s mark in its entirety and merely adds the term “components,” which describes Complainant’s business. Such an addition is insufficient to negate a finding of confusing similarity between Respondent’s domain name and Complainant’s mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Arthur Guinness Son & Co. (Dublin) Ltd. v. Healy/BOSTH, D2001-0026 (WIPO Mar. 23, 2001) (finding confusing similarity where the domain name in dispute contains the identical mark of Complainant combined with a generic word or term); see also Space Imaging LLC v. Brownell, AF-0298 (eResolution Sept. 22, 2000) (finding confusing similarity where Respondent’s domain name combines Complainant’s mark with a generic term that has an obvious relationship to Complainant’s business). Furthermore, the addition of the generic top-level domain “.com” and the omission of the space between the terms of Complainant’s mark is not enough to overcome a finding of confusing similarity pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Nev. State Bank v. Modern Ltd. – Cayman Web Dev., FA 204063 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 6, 2003) (“It has been established that the addition of a generic top-level domain is irrelevant when considering whether a domain name is identical or confusingly similar under the Policy.”); see also Rollerblade, Inc. v. McCrady, D2000-0429 (WIPO June 25, 2000) (finding that the top level of the domain name such as “.net” or “.com” does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar); see also Hannover Ruckversicherungs-AG v. Ryu, FA 102724 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 7, 2001) (finding <hannoverre.com> to be identical to HANNOVER RE, “as spaces are impermissible in domain names and a generic top-level domain such as ‘.com’ or ‘.net’ is required in domain names”). The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied. Rights or Legitimate Interests Respondent has failed to respond to the Complaint. Therefore, the Panel may accept all reasonable allegations and assertions set forth by Complainant as true and accurate. 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 the respondent’s failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of the complaint to be deemed true). Complainant has asserted that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and Respondent, in not submitting a response, has failed to rebut this assertion. Thus, the Panel may interpret Respondent’s failure to respond as evidence that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <allamericancomponents.com> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See Parfums Christian Dior v. QTR Corp., D2000-0023 (WIPO Mar. 9, 2000) (finding that, by not submitting a Response, Respondent has failed to invoke any circumstance which could demonstrate any rights or legitimate interests in the domain name); see also Bank of Am. Corp. v. McCall, FA 135012 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 31, 2002) (“Respondent's failure to respond not only results in its failure to meet its burden, but also will be viewed as evidence itself that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.”). Furthermore, Respondent is using the <allamericancomponents.com> domain name, which is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ALL AMERICAN mark, to sell high technology electronic components in direct competition with Complainant. Such competing use is not a use 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). Thus, the Panel finds that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See Computerized Sec. Sys., Inc. v. Hu, FA 157321 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 23, 2003) (holding that the respondent’s appropriation of the complainant’s mark to market products that compete with the 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 the complainant’s mark and that the respondent’s use of the domain names to sell competing goods was illegitimate and not a bona fide offering of goods). Moreover, nothing in the record indicates that Respondent is either commonly known by the disputed domain name or is authorized to register domain names featuring Complainant’s ALL AMERICAN mark. Thus, the Panel finds that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <allamericancomponents.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 Compagnie de Saint Gobain v. Com-Union Corp., D2000-0020 (WIPO Mar. 14, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where the respondent was not commonly known by the mark and never applied for a license or permission from the complainant to use the trademarked name). The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Respondent is using the confusingly similar domain name to operate a website that sells electronic components in direct competition with Complainant. The Panel finds that such use constitutes disruption and is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See SR Motorsports v. Rotary Performance, FA 95859 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 4, 2001) (finding it "obvious" that the domain names were registered for the primary purpose of disrupting the competitor's business when the parties are part of the same, highly specialized field); see also S. Exposure v. S. Exposure, Inc., FA 94864 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 18, 2000) (finding Respondent acted in bad faith by attracting Internet users to a website that competes with Complainant’s business). Since Respondent’s <allamericancomponents.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ALL AMERICAN mark, consumers accessing Respondent’s domain name may become confused as to Complainant’s affiliation with the resulting website. Thus, Respondent’s commercial use of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See G.D. Searle & Co. v. Celebrex Drugstore, FA 123933 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 21, 2002) (finding that the respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) because the respondent was using the confusingly similar domain name to attract Internet users to its commercial website); see also State Fair of Texas v. Granbury.com, FA 95288 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 12, 2000) (finding bad faith where the respondent registered the domain name <bigtex.net> to infringe on the complainant’s goodwill and attract Internet users to the respondent’s website). Furthermore, Respondent registered the <allamericancomponents.com> domain name with actual or constructive knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the ALL AMERICAN mark due to Complainant’s registration of the mark with the USPTO. Furthermore, the Panel infers that Respondent registered the domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the mark due to the obvious connection between the content featured on Respondent’s website and Complainant’s business. Registration of a domain name featuring another’s mark despite actual or constructive knowledge of another’s rights in the mark is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Samsonite Corp. v. Colony Holding, FA 94313 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 17, 2000) (finding that evidence of bad faith includes actual or constructive knowledge of a commonly known mark at the time of registration); see also Orange Glo Int’l v. Blume, FA 118313 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 4, 2002) (“Complainant’s OXICLEAN mark is listed on the Principal Register of the USPTO, a status that confers constructive notice on those seeking to register or use the mark or any confusingly similar variation thereof.”); see also Pfizer, Inc. v. Suger, D2002-0187 (WIPO Apr. 24, 2002) (finding that, because the link between the complainant’s mark and the content advertised on the respondent’s website was obvious, the respondent “must have known about the Complainant’s mark when it registered the subject domain name”). 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 <allamericancomponents.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Tyrus R. Atkinson, Jr., Panelist Dated: April 15, 2005 Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page. Click Here to return to our Home Page NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM

Source of record: FORUM . Reproduced for research; FORUM is the authoritative source.