Hunterdouglasceilingfans.com + 4 more domains

The timeline behind hunterdouglasceilingfans.com

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

How each disputed name was decided in this proceeding.

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

NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM DECISION Hunter Douglas Inc. v. Spiral Matrix Claim Number: FA0602000638270 PARTIES Complainant is Hunter Douglas Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Donald A. Degnan of Holland & Hart LLP, 1800 Broadway, Suite 300, Boulder, CO, 80302. Respondent is Spiral Matrix (“Respondent”), 1st Floor Muya House, Kenyatta Ave., P.O. Box 4276-30100, Eldoret, KE 30100, KE. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES The domain names at issue are <hunterdouglasceilingfans.com>, <hunterdouglaswindow.com>, <huntersdouglas.com>, <hunterdouglasblind.name> and <hunterdouglaswindowtreatment.com>, registered with Intercosmos Media Group, Inc. d/b/a Directnic.com. PANEL 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. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically February 2, 2006; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint February 6, 2006. On February 3, 2006 and February 12, 2006, Intercosmos Media Group, Inc. d/b/a Directnic.com, confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <hunterdouglasceilingfans.com>, <hunterdouglaswindow.com>, <huntersdouglas.com>, <hunterdouglasblind.name> and <hunterdouglaswindowtreatment.com> domain names are registered with Intercosmos Media Group, Inc. d/b/a Directnic.com, and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Intercosmos Media Group, Inc. d/b/a Directnic.com, verified that Respondent is bound by the Intercosmos Media Group, Inc. d/b/a Directnic.com, registration agreement and thereby has agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy"). On February 13, 2006, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of March 6, 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@hunterdouglasceilingfans.com, postmaster@hunterdouglaswindow.com, postmaster@huntersdouglas.com, postmaster@hunterdouglasblind.name and postmaster@hunterdouglaswindowtreatment.com by e-mail. Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On March 14, 2006, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Hon. Carolyn Marks Johnson as Panelist. Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the National Arbitration Forum 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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant makes the following assertions: 1. The domain names that Respondent registered, <hunterdouglasceilingfans.com>, <hunterdouglaswindow.com>, <huntersdouglas.com>, <hunterdouglasblind.name> and <hunterdouglaswindowtreatment.com>, are confusingly similar to Complainant’s HUNTER DOUGLAS mark. 2. Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the <hunterdouglasceilingfans.com>, <hunterdouglaswindow.com>, <huntersdouglas.com>, <hunterdouglasblind.name> and <hunterdouglaswindowtreatment.com> domain names. 3. Respondent registered and used the <hunterdouglasceilingfans.com>, <hunterdouglaswindow.com>, <huntersdouglas.com>, <hunterdouglasblind.name> and <hunterdouglaswindowtreatment.com> domain names in bad faith. B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant, Hunter Douglas Inc., is a major manufacturer of custom window coverings and architectural products, and has operated under the HUNTER DOUGLAS mark for more than forty years. Complainant offers products and services in Europe, North America, Latin America, Asia, and Australia. Complainant is a trademark licensee of Hunter Douglas Industries B.V., which owns several registrations of the HUNTER DOUGLAS mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 1,384,964 issued March 4, 1986; Reg. No. 1,385,249 issued March 4, 1986; Reg. No. 1,385,263 issued March 4, 1986; Reg. No. 1,707,755 issued March 4, 1986). Complainant also operates a website located at the <hunterdouglas.com> domain name, and holds several other domain name registrations that incorporate its HUNTER DOUGLAS mark (including <hunterdouglasonline.com>, <hunterdouglas-woodblinds.com> and <hunterdouglasshades.com>). Respondent registered the <hunterdouglasceilingfans.com> domain name July 7, 2005, the <hunterdouglaswindow.com> domain name June 10, 2005, the <huntersdouglas.com> domain name June 7, 2005, the <hunterdouglasblind.name> domain name August 19, 2005, and the <hunterdouglaswindowtreatment.com> domain name November 8, 2005. Internet users who access these domain names are directed to websites that prominently feature the HUNTER DOUGLAS mark, along with numerous links to other websites that offer products in 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 will draw such inferences as the Panel 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 Complainant to 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 to and/or Confusingly Similar The Panel finds that Hunter Douglas Industries B.V.’s registrations of the HUNTER DOUGLAS mark with the USPTO sufficiently establish its rights in the mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Innomed Techs., Inc. v. DRP Servs., FA 221171 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 18, 2004) (“Registration of the NASAL-AIRE mark with the USPTO establishes Complainant's rights in the mark.”); see also 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.”). Complainant has licensed the HUNTER DOUGLAS mark from the owner of mark, Hunter Douglas Industries B.V., which has registered the mark with the USPTO. The fact that Complainant has licensed the mark from its owner establishes Complainant’s rights in the mark, pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See FDNY Fire Safety Educ. Fund, Inc. v. Miller, FA 145235 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 26, 2003) (“Complainant has established trademark rights, as licensee, in the FDNY Marks, including the trademark consisting of the initials FDNY.”); see also Savin Corp. v. Schisler, FA 294206 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 25, 2004) (finding that as a licensee of the RICOH marks, the complainant has sufficient rights in the mark to seek transfer of the domain name <ricoamerica.com>). Each of Respondent’s domain names is confusingly similar to Complainant’s HUNTER DOUGLAS mark. Four of the disputed domain names, <hunterdouglasceilingfans.com>, <hunterdouglaswindow.com>, <hunterdouglasblind.name> and <hunterdouglaswindowtreatment.com> incorporate Complainant’s HUNTER DOUGLAS mark in its entirety, along with a descriptive term related to Complainant’s business. The addition of a descriptive term bearing an obvious relation to Complainant’s business does not adequately distinguish the disputed domain names from Complainant’s mark. See Space Imaging LLC v. Brownell, AF-0298 (eResolution Sept. 22, 2000) (finding confusing similarity where the respondent’s domain name combines the complainant’s mark with a generic term that has an obvious relationship to the complainant’s business); see also Brambles Indus. Ltd. v. Geelong Car Co. Pty. Ltd., D2000-1153 (WIPO Oct. 17, 2000) (finding that the domain name <bramblesequipment.com> is confusingly similar because the combination of the two words "brambles" and "equipment" in the domain name implies that there is an association with the complainant’s business). Respondent’s <huntersdouglas.com> domain name also incorporates Complainant’s HUNTER DOUGLAS mark in its entirety, with the addition of a letter between the terms. The addition of a single letter to Complainant’s mark does not negate the confusing similarity between the <huntersdouglas.com> domain name and Complainant’s HUNTER DOUGLAS mark. See Am.Online, Inc. v. Avrasya Yayincilik Danismanlik Ltd., FA 93679 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 16, 2000) (finding that the respondent’s domain name, <americanonline.com>, is confusingly similar to the complainant’s famous AMERICA ONLINE mark); see also Nat’l Geographic Soc’y v. Stoneybrook Invs., FA 96263 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 11, 2001) (finding that the domain name <nationalgeographics.com> was confusingly similar to the complainant’s NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC mark). The Panel finds that Complainant satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights to or Legitimate Interests Complainant established using extrinsic proof in this proceeding that it has rights to and legitimate interests in the mark contained in the disputed domain names. Complainant alleged that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the mark and therefore has none in the <hunterdouglasceilingfans.com>, <hunterdouglaswindow.com>, <huntersdouglas.com>, <hunterdouglasblind.name> and <hunterdouglaswindowtreatment.com> domain names. Once Complainant makes a prima facie case in support of its allegations, the burden shifts to Respondent to prove that it does have rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000-0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (once the complainant asserts that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the domain, the burden shifts to the respondent to provide “concrete evidence that it has rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name at issue”); see also Clerical Med. Inv. Group Ltd. v. Clericalmedical.com, D2000-1228 (WIPO Nov. 28, 2000) (finding that, under certain circumstances, the mere assertion by the complainant that the respondent has no right or legitimate interest is sufficient to shift the burden of proof to the respondent to demonstrate that such a right or legitimate interest does exist). Respondent is using the disputed domain names to divert Internet users to websites that feature Complainant’s mark, but also feature links to other websites offering competing products. Presumably Respondent receives pay-per-click referral fees in exchange for diverting Internet users to these other websites. Respondent’s use of domain names that include Complainant’s HUNTER DOUGLAS mark to redirect Internet users to websites that offer products or services in competition with Complainant is not a use in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and 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 TM Acquisition Corp. v. Sign Guards, FA 132439 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 31, 2002) (finding that the respondent’s diversionary use of the complainant’s marks to send Internet users to a website which displayed a series of links, some of which linked to the complainant’s competitors, was not a bona fide offering of goods or services); see also Black & Decker Corp. v. Clinical Evaluations, FA 112629 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 24, 2002) (holding that the respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to redirect Internet users to commercial websites, unrelated to the complainant and presumably with the purpose of earning a commission or pay-per-click referral fee did not evidence rights or legitimate interests in the domain name). Respondent has not offered any evidence, and none in the record suggests, that Respondent is commonly known by any of the disputed domain names. Complainant asserts that Respondent is not associated or affiliated with Complainant, and that Complainant has not authorized Respondent’s use of the HUNTER DOUGLAS mark. Nothing in the WHOIS information indicates that Respondent is commonly known as HUNTER DOUGLAS. Thus, Respondent has not established rights or legitimate interests in the disputed names pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Wells Fargo & Co. v. Onlyne Corp. Services11, Inc., FA 198969 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 17, 2003) (“Given the WHOIS contact information for the disputed domain [name], one can infer that Respondent, Onlyne Corporate Services11, is not commonly known by the name ‘welsfargo’ in any derivation.”); 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"). The Panel finds that Complainant satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Registration and Use in Bad Faith Respondent is using the disputed domain names, which are confusingly similar to Complainant’s HUNTER DOUGLAS mark, to redirect Internet users to websites that feature links to competitors’ websites. The Panel assumes that Respondent receives click-through fees in exchange for diverting Internet users to these websites. Because of the confusing similarity of the domain names and the use of Complainant’s mark on Respondent’s websites, Internet users may mistakenly believe that Respondent’s websites are affiliated with Complainant. Use of the disputed domain names to take advantage of such confusion constitutes bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Am. Univ. v. Cook, FA 208629 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 22, 2003) (“Registration and use of a domain name that incorporates another's mark with the intent to deceive Internet users in regard to the source or affiliation of the domain name is evidence of bad faith.”); see also Associated Newspapers Ltd. v. Domain Manager, FA 201976 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 19, 2003) (“Respondent's prior use of the <mailonsunday.com> domain name is evidence of bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) because the domain name provided links to Complainant's competitors and Respondent presumably commercially benefited from the misleading domain name by receiving ‘click-through-fees.’”). Furthermore, Respondent is taking advantage of the fact that Internet users may mistype the <hunterdouglas.com> domain name when they try to access Complainant’s website. The <huntersdouglas.com> domain name incorporates Complainant’s mark along with an extra letter between the terms. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent has registered this domain name to redirect Internet users to its website when they make a typographical error when trying to access Complainant’s website. Respondent’s registration of the <huntersdouglas.com> domain name amounts to typosquatting, which is further evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Nat’l Ass’n of Prof’l Baseball League, Inc. v. Zuccarini, D2002-1011 (WIPO Jan. 21, 2003) (“Typosquatting … is the intentional misspelling of words with [the] 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. v. domain adm’r no.valid.email@worldnic.net 1111111111, D2003-0232 (WIPO May 22, 2003) (finding the respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith because the respondent “created ‘a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s web site or location’. . . through Respondent’s persistent practice of ‘typosquatting’”). The Panel finds that Complainant satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). 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 <hunterdouglasceilingfans.com>, <hunterdouglaswindow.com>, <huntersdouglas.com>, <hunterdouglasblind.name> and <hunterdouglaswindowtreatment.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Hon. Carolyn Marks Johnson, Panelist Dated: March 28, 2006 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.