Yarndexforyarn.com

The timeline behind yarndexforyarn.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 Yarnmarket Inc. v. yarndexforyarn Claim Number: FA0910001288402 PARTIES Complainant is Yarnmarket, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Jerry K. Mueller, Jr., of Mueller Smith & Okuley LLC, Ohio, USA. Respondent is yarndexforyarn.com (“Respondent”), Canada. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <yarndexforyarn.com>, registered with Wild West Domains, 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. Honorable Paul A. Dorf (Ret.) as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on October 8, 2009; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on October 16, 2009. On October 8, 2009, Wild West Domains, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <yarndexforyarn.com> domain name is registered with Wild West Domains, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Wild West Domains, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Wild West Domains, 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 October 28, 2009, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of November 17, 2009 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@yarndexforyarn.com by e-mail. Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On November 23, 2009, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Honorable Paul A. Dorf (Ret.) 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 <yarndexforyarn.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s YARNDEX mark. 2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <yarndexforyarn.com> domain name. 3. Respondent registered and used the <yarndexforyarn.com> domain name in bad faith. B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant, Yarnmarket Inc., has been operating a website resolving from the <yarndex.com> domain name since at least December 30, 2004. Complainant sells yarn, thread, and floss. Complainant filed for registration of the YARNDEX mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) on June 23, 2006. The UPSTO issued Complainant a registration in the mark on May 1, 2007 (Reg. No. 3,237,039). On the registration certificate, the date of first use is listed as January 1, 2005. Respondent registered the <yarndexforyarn.com> domain name on August 28, 2005. The disputed domain name resolves to a commercial website that sells yarn 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. 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 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 must first establish that it has rights to the mark included in the disputed domain name. Traditionally, a registration of mark with the USPTO warrants a finding of established rights in a mark. However, the registration of the <yarndexforyarn.com> domain name antedates the filing date of Complainant’s YARNDEX mark. Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) registration of a trademark is not necessary to establish that Complainant has rights in the mark. See McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition, § 25:74.2 (4th ed. 2002) (The ICANN dispute resolution policy is “broad in scope” in that “the reference to a trademark or service mark ‘in which the complainant has rights’ means that ownership of a registered mark is not required–unregistered or common law trademark or service mark rights will suffice” to support a domain name complaint under the Policy); see also Great Plains Metromall, LLC v. Creach, FA 97044 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 18, 2001) (“The Policy does not require that a trademark be registered by a governmental authority for such rights to exist.”). Ultimately, Complainant has registered and used the <yarndex.com> domain name continuously since at least the beginning of 2005 to sell yearn, thread, and floss, predating Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name on August 28, 2005. Consumers have come to identify the YARNDEX mark with Complainant and its yarn. The Panel finds that this continuous use is sufficient to establish secondary meaning and thus, common law rights in the YARNDEX mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Am. Anti-Vivisection Soc'y. v. "Infa dot Net" Web Serv., FA 95685 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 6, 2000) (finding that the fact that the complainant held the domain name prior to the respondent’s registration, as well held a pending trademark application in the mark, evidences rights in the domain name and the mark therein contained); see also S.A. Bendheim Co., Inc. v. Hollander Glass, FA 142318 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 13, 2003) (holding that the complainant established rights in the descriptive RESTORATION GLASS mark through proof of secondary meaning associated with the mark); see also Tuxedos By Rose v. Nunez, FA 95248 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 17, 2000) (finding common law rights in a mark where its use was continuous and ongoing, and secondary meaning was established). The <yarndexforyarn.com> domain name consists of the elements “yarndex,” “for,” “yarn,” and “.com.” The element “yarndex” is complainant’s entire and unaltered mark. The generic top-level domain “.com” is irrelevant when comparing domain names to trademarks to determine if Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) is met. See Gardline Surveys Ltd. v. Domain Fin. Ltd., FA 153545 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 27, 2003) (“The addition of a top-level domain is irrelevant when establishing whether or not a mark is identical or confusingly similar, because top-level domains are a required element of every domain name.”). The addition of the common generic conjunction “for” does not diminish the similarity between the disputed 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 the complainant combined with a generic word or term). The generic term “yarn” describes the product produced by Complainant and results in confusing similarity to Complainant’s YARNDEX mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Marriott Int’l, Inc. v. Café au lait, FA 93670, (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 13, 2000) (finding that the respondent’s domain name <marriott-hotel.com> is confusingly similar to the complainant’s MARRIOTT mark); see also 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). The Panel therefore finds that the <yarndexforyarn.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s YARNDEX mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights or Legitimate Interests Pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first establish a prima facie case that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <yarndexforyarn.com> domain name. If the Panel finds that Complainant’s allegations establish such a prima facie case, the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does indeed have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to the guidelines in Policy ¶ 4(c). The Panel finds that Complainant’s allegations are sufficient to establish a prima facie case that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <yarndexforyarn.com> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Since no response was submitted in this case, the Panel may presume that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <yarndexforyarn.com> domain name. However, the Panel will still examine the record in consideration of the factors listed in Policy ¶ 4(c). See Domtar, Inc. v. Theriault., FA 1089426 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 4, 2008) (“It is well established that, once a complainant has made out a prima facie case in support of its allegations, the burden shifts to respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.”); see also G.D. Searle v. Martin Mktg., FA 118277 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 1, 2002) (“Because Complainant’s Submission constitutes a prima facie case under the Policy, the burden effectively shifts to Respondent. Respondent’s failure to respond means that Respondent has not presented any circumstances that would promote its rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).”). Respondent is using the <yarndexforyarn.com> domain name to resolve to a commercial website offering yarn in direct competition with Complainant’s business. Respondent’s use of a domain name that is confusingly similar to Complainant’s YARNDEX mark to redirect Internet users to a competing website is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ (4)(c)(i), nor is it a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Coryn Group, Inc. v. Media Insight, FA 198959 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 5, 2003) (finding that the respondent was not using the domain names for a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use because the respondent used the names to divert Internet users to a website that offered services that competed with those offered by the complainant under its marks); see also Bank of Am. Corp. v. Nw. Free Cmty. Access, FA 180704 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 30, 2003) (“Respondent's demonstrated intent to divert Internet users seeking Complainant's website to a website of Respondent and for Respondent's benefit is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and it is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”). The Panel finds that operation of a website as “yarndexforyarn” is insufficient, without additional proof from Respondent, to prove Respondent is commonly known by the <yarndexforyarn.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Ultimate Elecs., Inc. v. Nichols, FA 195683 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 27, 2003) (“[O]ther than Respondent’s infringing use of the ULTIMATE ELECTRONICS mark on its web page and in its domain name . . . , there is no evidence that Respondent is commonly known by the <ultimateelectronics.net> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), or that there is any other entity besides Complainant authorized to trade as ULTIMATE ELECTRONICS.”); see also Hewlett-Packard Co. v. HP Supplies, FA 282387 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 22, 2004) (“The Panel finds, because of the prominence of the HP mark, that Respondent’s registration under the ‘HP Supplies’ name does not establish that Respondent is commonly known by the <hpsupplies.com> domain name.”). The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Registration and Use in Bad Faith Respondent registered the disputed domain name on August 28, 2005. Respondent, who is a direct competitor of Complainant, is using Complainant’s YARNDEX mark in the <yarndexforyarn.com> domain name to redirect Internet users to a competing yarn-selling website. This use and Respondent’s competing relationship with Complainant, suggests that Respondent registered the disputed domain name intending to disrupt Complainant’s business. The Panel finds that this is evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See S. Exposure v. S. Exposure, Inc., FA 94864 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 18, 2000) (finding that the respondent registered the domain name in question to disrupt the business of the complainant, a competitor of the respondent); see also Disney Enters., Inc. v. Noel, FA 198805 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 11, 2003) (“Respondent registered a domain name confusingly similar to Complainant's mark to divert Internet users to a competitor's website. It is a reasonable inference that Respondent's purpose of registration and use was to either disrupt or create confusion for Complainant's business in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) [and] (iv).”). Respondent is using the <yarndexforyarn.com> domain name to attract users to a competing yarn-selling website. The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is capable of creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark and that Respondent has sought to profit from this confusion through a commercial website. The Panel finds Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Computerized Sec. Sys., Inc. v. Hu, FA 157321 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 23, 2003) (finding that the respondent’s use of the <saflock.com> domain name to offer goods competing with the complainant’s illustrates the respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the domain name, evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)); see also Identigene, Inc. v. Genetest Labs., D2000-1100 (WIPO Nov. 30, 2000) (finding bad faith where the respondent's use of the domain name at issue to resolve to a website where similar services are offered to Internet users is likely to confuse the user into believing that the complainant is the source of or is sponsoring the services offered at the site). The Panel finds that Complainant has 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 <yarndexforyarn.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Honorable Paul A. Dorf (Ret.), Panelist Dated: December 8, 2009 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.