Hpprinterssoftware.com

The timeline behind hpprinterssoftware.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 Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. and Hewlett-Packard Company v. Rampe Purda Claim Number: FA0912001298005 PARTIES Complainant is Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. and Hewlett-Packard Company (“Complainant”), represented by James F. Struthers of Richard Law Group, Inc., Texas, USA. Respondent is Rampe Purda (“Respondent”), Finland. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <hpprinterssoftware.com>, registered with Hebei International Trading ( Shanghai) Co., Ltd. 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 December 8, 2009; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint December 9, 2009. On December 11, 2009, Hebei International Trading ( Shanghai) Co., Ltd, confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <hpprinterssoftware.com> domain name is registered with Hebei International Trading ( Shanghai) Co., Ltd, and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Hebei International Trading ( Shanghai) Co., Ltd, verified that Respondent is bound by the Hebei International Trading (Shanghai) Co., Ltd, 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 December 21, 2009, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of January 11, 2010, 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@hpprinterssoftware.com by e-mail. Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On January 22, 2010, 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 name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant makes the following assertions: 1. The disputed domain name that Respondent registered, <hpprinterssoftware.com>, is confusingly similar to Complainant’s HP mark. 2. Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the <hpprinterssoftware.com> domain name. 3. Respondent registered and used the <hpprinterssoftware.com> domain name in bad faith. B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant, Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. and Hewlett-Packard Company, holds numerous trademark registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) for the HP mark (e.g., Reg. No. 1,116,835 issued April 24, 1979) in connection with computers and computer software. Respondent, Rampe Purda, registered the <hpprinterssoftware.com> domain name December 25, 2008. The disputed domain name resolves to a website featuring click-through links to third-party websites, including some that directly compete 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." 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 HP mark through its holding of multiple trademark registrations for the HP mark with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 1,116,835 issued April 24, 1979). The Panel finds that Complainant established rights in the HP 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 Williams-Sonoma, Inc. v. Fees, FA 937704 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 25, 2007) (finding that it is irrelevant whether the complainant has registered its trademark in the country of the respondent’s residence). Complainant argues that Respondent’s <hpprinterssoftware.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s HP mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Respondent’s disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s HP mark because Respondent’s domain name merely adds the descriptive terms “printers” and “software” and the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com” to Complainant’s HP mark. The Panel finds that the addition of the words “printers” and “software” creates a confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and Complainant’s mark. See 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)); see also Gillette Co. v. RFK Assocs., FA 492867 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 28, 2005) (finding that the additions of the term “batteries,” which described the complainant’s products, and the generic top-level domain “.com” were insufficient to distinguish the respondent’s <duracellbatteries.com> from the complainant’s DURACELL mark). The Panel also finds that the addition of a gTLD is irrelevant in distinguishing a disputed domain name from a 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 Jerry Damson, Inc. v. Tex. Int’l Prop. Assocs., FA 916991 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 10, 2007) (“The mere addition of a generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com” does not serve to adequately distinguish the Domain Name from the mark.”). Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is 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 to or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Once Complainant makes a prima facie case in support of its allegations, the burden of proof shifts to Respondent to prove it does have such rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Based on the arguments made in the Complaint, the Panel finds that Complainant made a prima facie case in support of its contentions and that Respondent has failed to submit a Response to 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 still examines the record to determine if evidence in the submission suggests on its face that Respondent has rights to or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c). The WHOIS information lists the registrant as “Rampe Purda.” Complainant alleges that Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant in any way and that Complainant has not licensed Respondent to use Complainant’s mark. Respondent is not an authorized vendor, supplier, or distributor of Complainant’s goods and services. Without evidence to the contrary, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name 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 St. Lawrence Univ. v. Nextnet Tech, FA 881234 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 21, 2007) (concluding a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name where there was no evidence in the record indicating that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name). Respondent registered the <hpprinterssoftware.com> domain name December 25, 2008. The disputed domain name resolves to a website featuring third-party links to products and services, some of which directly compete with Complainant. The Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name is neither a bona fide offering of goods and services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See 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)); see also 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). 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 of the <hpprinterssoftware.com> domain name to link Internet users to a website displaying links to third-party websites, some of which directly compete with Complainant, constitutes a disruption of Complainant’s business and is evidence 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 Tesco Pers. Fin. Ltd. v. Domain Mgmt. Servs., FA 877982 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 13, 2007) (concluding that the use of a confusingly similar domain name to attract Internet users to a directory website containing commercial links to the websites of a complainant’s competitors represents bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)). Respondent is using the confusingly similar disputed domain name to intentionally attract Internet users by creating a strong likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s HP mark and redirects these users to third-party websites, some of which directly compete with Complainant. The Panel is permitted to presume that Respondent receives referral fees as a result of this diversion. Thus, the Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Univ. of Houston Sys. v. Salvia Corp., FA 637920 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 21, 2006) (“Respondent is using the disputed domain name to operate a website which features links to competing and non-competing commercial websites from which Respondent presumably receives referral fees. Such use for Respondent’s own commercial gain is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).”); see also Zee TV USA, Inc. v. Siddiqi, FA 721969 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 18, 2006) (finding that the respondent engaged in bad faith registration and use by using a domain name that was confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark to offer links to third-party websites that offered services similar to those offered by the complainant). 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 <hpprinterssoftware.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Hon. Carolyn Marks Johnson, Panelist Dated: February 2, 2010 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.