Epsoninklinker.info, Epsonhouse.info

The timeline behind epsoninklinker.info

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 Seiko Epson Corporation and Epson America, Inc. v. Eric Williams Claim Number: FA0910001290715 PARTIES Complainant is Seiko Epson Corporation and Epson America, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by James B. Belshe, of Workman Nydegger, Utah, USA. Respondent is Eric Williams (“Respondent”), Arizona, USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES The domain names at issue are <epsoninklinker.info> and <epsonhouse.info>, registered with GoDaddy.com, Inc. 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 October 21, 2009; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint October 22, 2009. On October 22, 2009, GoDaddy.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <epsoninklinker.info> and <epsonhouse.info> domain names are registered with GoDaddy.com, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. GoDaddy.com, Inc. verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, Inc. 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 November 3, 2009, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of November 23, 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@epsoninklinker.info and postmaster@epsonhouse.info by e-mail. Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On December 2, 2009, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Hon. Carolyn Marks Johnson to sit 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, <epsoninklinker.info> and <epsonhouse.info> are confusingly similar to Complainant’s EPSON mark. 2. Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the <epsoninklinker.info> and <epsonhouse.info> domain names. 3. Respondent registered and used the <epsoninklinker.info> and <epsonhouse.info> domain names in bad faith. B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant, Seiko Epson Corporation and Epson America, Inc., holds numerous trademark registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) for the EPSON mark (e.g., Reg. No. 1,134,004 issued April 29, 1980) in connection with high technology products, specifically computers and printers. Respondent, Eric Williams, registered the <epsoninklinker.info> and <epsonhouse.info> domain names May 6, 2009. The disputed domain names resolve to a website purporting to sell Complainant’s branded printers, replacement and/or refilled inkjet cartridges for Complainant’s branded printers, and includes links through which Internet users can access a number of other sites and products. Many of these other sites and products compete directly with Complainant and Respondent is presumably receiving click-through fees from these sites. 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." Given 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 Complainant asserts rights in its EPSON mark through its holding of trademark registrations for the EPSON mark with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 1,134,004 issued April 29, 1980). The Panel finds that Complainant has shown established rights in the EPSON mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through its trademark registration with the USPTO. See Expedia, Inc. v. Tan, FA 991075 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 29, 2007) (“As the [complainant’s] mark is registered with the USPTO, [the] complainant has met the requirements of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”); see also Microsoft Corp. v. Burkes, FA 652743 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 17, 2006) (“Complainant has established rights in the MICROSOFT mark through registration of the mark with the USPTO.”). Complainant argues that Respondent’s <epsoninklinker.info> and <epsonhouse.info> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s EPSON mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Respondent’s disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s EPSON mark because Respondent’s domain names merely adds generic terms and the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.info” to the entirety of Complainant’s EPSON mark. The Panel finds that the addition of the words “ink linker” and “house” creates a confusing similarity between the disputed domain names and the Complainant’s mark. 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); see also Am. Express Co. v. MustNeed.com, FA 257901 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 7, 2004) (finding the respondent’s <amextravel.com> domain name confusingly similar to Complainant’s AMEX mark because the “mere addition of a generic or descriptive word to a registered mark does not negate” a finding of confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)). The Panel also finds that the addition of a gTLD to a registered mark is irrelevant in distinguishing a disputed domain name is irrelevant in distinguishing a disputed domain name and mark. See Trip Network Inc. v. Alviera, FA 914943 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 27, 2007) (concluding that the affixation of a gTLD to a domain name is irrelevant to a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis); see also Microsoft Corp. v. Zournas, FA 1093928 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 10, 2007) (“the Panel finds that Respondent’s <windows.info> domain name is identical to Complainant’s WINDOWS mark as the addition of a gTLD is a necessary addition in the creation of any domain name and therefore an indistinguishing characteristic under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).“). Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). The Panel finds that Complainant satisfied the elements of ICANN Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights to or Legitimate Interests Complainant alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed 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 to or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Based on the arguments made in the Complaint, the Panel finds that Complainant established a prima facie case in support of its contentions and that Respondent failed to submit a Response to those allegations in these proceedings. See Intel Corp. v. Macare, FA 660685 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 26, 2006) (finding the “complainant must first make a prima facie case that [the] respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and then the burden shifts to [the] respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests.”); see also Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 18, 2006) (holding that the complainant must first make a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) before the burden shifts to the respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in a domain name). Nevertheless, the Panel examines the record to determine if evidence there suggests that Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c). The WHOIS information lists the registrant as “Eric Williams.” Complainant alleges that Respondent is not licensed or otherwise authorized to use Complainant’s mark in the domain names at issue or for any other purpose. Without evidence to the contrary, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Braun Corp. v. Loney, FA 699652 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 7, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain names where the WHOIS information, as well as all other information in the record, gave no indication that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain names, and the complainant had not authorized the respondent to register a domain name containing its registered mark); see also M. Shanken Commc’ns v. WORLDTRAVELERSONLINE.COM, FA 740335 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 3, 2006) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <cigaraficionada.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) based on the WHOIS information and other evidence in the record). Respondent’s <epsoninklinker.info> and <epsonhouse.info> domain names were registered May 6, 2009. The disputed domain names resolve to a website purporting to sell Complainant’s branded printers, replacement and/or refilled inkjet cartridges for Complainant branded printers, and also including links through which Internet users can access a number of other sites and products. Many of these other sites and products compete directly with Complainant and Respondent is presumably receiving click-through fees from these sites. The Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain names is not a bona fide offering of goods and services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and it is not a legitimate noncommerical or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Vance Int’l, Inc. v. Abend, FA 970871 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 8, 2007) (concluding that the operation of a pay-per-click website at a confusingly similar domain name does not represent a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, regardless of whether or not the links resolve to competing or unrelated websites or if the respondent is itself commercially profiting from the click-through fees); see also ALPITOUR S.p.A. v. Albloushi, FA 888651 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 26, 2007) (rejecting the respondent’s contention of rights and legitimate interests in the <bravoclub.com> domain name because the respondent was merely using the domain name to operate a website containing links to various competing commercial websites, which the panel did not find to be 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)). The Panel finds that Complainant satisfied the elements of ICANN Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Registration and Use in Bad Faith The Panel finds that Respondent’s registration and use of the <epsoninklinker.info> and <epsonhouse.info> domain names to operate a click-through website in competition with Complainant constitutes a disruption of Complainant’s business and supports findings of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See Red Hat, Inc. v. Haecke, FA 726010 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 24, 2006) (finding that the respondent engaged in bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) by using the disputed domain names to operate a commercial search engine with links to the products of the complainant and to complainant’s competitors, as well as by diverting Internet users to several other domain names); see also Lambros v. Brown, FA 198963 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 19, 2003) (finding that the respondent registered a domain name primarily to disrupt its competitor when it sold similar goods as those offered by the complainant and “even included Complainant's personal name on the website, leaving Internet users with the assumption that it was Complainant's business they were doing business with”). Respondent’s use of the confusingly similar disputed domain names in order to intentionally attract Internet users to its website by creating a strong likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s EPSON mark is further evidence of bad faith. The Panel presumes that Respondent profits through the receipt of click-through fees for the competitive links published on the website resolving from the disputed domain names. Therefore, the Panel finds this use of the disputed domain names constitutes bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See T-Mobile USA, Inc. v. utahhealth, FA 697821 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 7, 2006) (holding that the registration and use of a domain name confusingly similar to a complainant’s mark to direct Internet traffic to a commercial “links page” in order to profit from click-through fees or other revenue sources constitutes bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)); see also Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Bonds, FA 873143 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 16, 2007) (“The Panel finds such use to constitute bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv), because [r]espondent is taking advantage of the confusing similarity between the <metropolitanlife.us> domain name and Complainant’s METLIFE mark in order to profit from the goodwill associated with the mark.”). The Panel finds that Complainant satisfied the elements of ICANN 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 <epsoninklinker.info> and <epsonhouse.info> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Hon. Carolyn Marks Johnson, Panelist Dated: December 21, 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.