Lowesgranite.com + 4 more domains

The timeline behind lowesgranite.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 LF, LLC v. All Granite Claim Number: FA0705000992052 PARTIES Complainant is LF, LLC (“Complainant”), represented by J. Mark Wilson, of Moore & Van Allen PLLC, Suite 4700, 100 North Tryon Street, Charlotte, NC 28202-4003. The Respondent is named in the Complaint as All Granite but in the Response as All Granite and Marble Corp. It is represented by Szymon Siewior, 1-A Mt. Vernon Street, Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660 and it is referred to throughout this Decision as “Respondent.” REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES The domain names at issue are <lowesgranite.com>, <lowesvanity.com>, <lowescountertop.com>, <lowesstone.com> and <lowesbathroom.com>, (“the disputed domain names”) which are registered with Go Daddy Software, Inc. (“Go Daddy”). PANEL The undersigned, David H Tatham, 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. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (“the Forum”) electronically on May 23, 2007; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on May 24, 2007. On May 23, 2007, Go Daddy confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that all of the disputed domain names, namely <lowesgranite.com>, <lowesvanity.com>, <lowescountertop.com>, <lowesstone.com> and <lowesbathroom.com>, were registered with it and that Respondent is the current registrant of them all. Go Daddy has also verified that Respondent is bound by its 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 May 25, 2007, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding, setting a deadline of June 14, 2007 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@lowesgranite.com, postmaster@lowesvanity.com, postmaster@lowescountertop.com, postmaster@lowesstone.com and postmaster@lowesbathroom.com by e-mail. A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on June 1, 2007. On June 6, 2007, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed David H Tatham as Panelist. RELIEF SOUGHT Complainant requests that the disputed domain names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Complainant is the owner of numerous US Federal registrations for LOWE’S, including the following, in respect of both of which a Section 15 Affidavit has been filed, so they are both incontestable – No. 1,168,799 registered as from September 8, 1981 in Class 42 and claiming 1946 as its date of first use. It was renewed in 2001. No. 1,922,425 registered as from September 26, 1995 in Classes 36, 37, 40, 41 and 42 and claiming December 31, 1946 as its date of first use. Complainant also owns and uses the domain names <loweshomeimprovement.com> and <lowes.com> at which more than 100 different products are listed. Complainant contends that its licensees operate one of the largest and best known networks of home improvement retail stores in the USA. This includes over 1,375 stores in 49 States, employing more than 210,000 employees. In 2006 the annual revenue generated by Complainant’s licensees exceeded US $46,900,000,000.00. The home improvement products and services which have been marketed and/or distributed by Complainant or its predecessors in business, or through its licensees include granite and stone products, bathroom fixtures, countertops, vanity units, and related consultation and installation services. Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to its LOWE’S mark; that, by registering them, Respondent is acting in bad faith; that Respondent is using the disputed domain names for commercial purposes to divert or redirect Internet users to web pages that feature, among other things, links to third-party websites that offer goods and services relating to home improvement products and services; that Respondent has no pre-existing rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names; and that Respondent’s actions fall squarely within the activity which the Policy is intended to remedy. B. Respondent Respondent states, in a very short Response, that it does not want to pursue the dispute and that it is willing to cooperate in the transfer of all the disputed domain names in accordance with Complainant’s request. FINDINGS Complainant is the owner of the service mark LOWE’S under which it operates a substantial business, consisting of a network of home improvement retail stores throughout the USA which are operated principally through licensees. Respondent has stated that it is willing for the disputed domain names to be transferred to Complainant. DISCUSSION Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (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.” Respondent does not contest any of Complainant’s allegations regarding the disputed domain names, and indeed has indicated that it will consent to a judgment in favour of Complainant for the transfer of all of the disputed domain names. In similar circumstances, Panels in several earlier Decisions have foregone the traditional UDRP analysis and ordered the immediate transfer of the domain names, namely Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH v. Modern Ltd. – Cayman Web Development, FA 133625 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 9, 2003) (transferring the domain name registration where the Respondent stipulated to the transfer); Malev Hungarian Airlines, Ltd. v. Vertical Axis Inc., FA 212653 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 13, 2004) in which it was said: “In this case, the parties have both asked for the domain name to be transferred to the Complainant . . . Since the requests of the parties in this case are identical, the Panel has no scope to do anything other than to recognize the common request, and it has no mandate to make findings of fact or of compliance (or not) with the Policy.”; and Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Elmer Morales, FA 475191 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 24, 2005) in which it was said: “[U]nder such circumstances, where Respondent has agreed to comply with Complainant’s request, the Panel felt it to be expedient and judicial to forego the traditional UDRP analysis and order the transfer of the domain names.” In this case, the Panel sees no reason why it should depart from the course adopted in all three of the above Decisions, or why it should deny the requests of both Complainant and Respondent. DECISION Having established that Complainant’s request for a transfer of all of the disputed domain names is not contested by Respondent, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED. Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <lowesgranite.com>, <lowesvanity.com>, <lowescountertop.com>, <lowesstone.com> and <lowesbathroom.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. David H Tatham, Panelist Dated: June 12, 2007 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.