Enfamilcoupons.org

The timeline behind enfamilcoupons.org

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 Mead Johnson & Company, LLC v. Rien Chin Claim Number: FA1010001350259 PARTIES Complainant is Mead Johnson & Company, LLC ("Complainant"), represented by R. Parrish Freeman of Waddey & Patterson, P.C., Tennessee, USA. Respondent is Rien Chin ("Respondent"), Singapore. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <enfamilcoupons.org>, registered with Name.com, LLC. PANEL The undersigned 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. Bruce E. Meyerson as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on October 4, 2010; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on October 4, 2010. On October 6, 2010, Name.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <enfamilcoupons.org> domain name is registered with Name.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Name.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Name.com, LLC registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”). On October 12, 2010, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of November 1, 2010 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@enfamilcoupons.org. Also on October 12, 2010, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the email addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts. Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On November 10, 2010, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Bruce E. Meyerson 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" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. 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 <enfamilcoupons.org> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ENFAMIL mark. 2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <enfamilcoupons.org> domain name. 3. Respondent registered and used the <enfamilcoupons.org> domain name in bad faith. B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant, Mead Johnson & Company, LLC, is a company specializing in the production and retail of infant and children’s food. Complainant registered its ENFAMIL trademark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 696,534 issued April 10, 1960). Respondent, Rien Chin, registered the <enfamilcoupons.org> domain name on November 15, 2009. The disputed domain name resolves to a website featuring links to Complainant’s website, in addition to websites that are unrelated to the children’s products produced and sold by 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 contends it has established rights in the ENFAMIL mark based on its registration of the mark with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 696,534 issued April 10, 1960). Registration with a federal trademark authority is sufficient to establish rights in a mark. See Paisley Park Enters. v. Lawson, FA 384834 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 1, 2005) (finding that the complainant had established rights in the PAISLEY PARK mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through registration of the mark with the USPTO); see also Renaissance Hotel Holdings, Inc. v. Renaissance Cochin, FA 932344 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 23, 2007) (finding that it does not matter whether the complainant has registered its trademark in the country in which the respondent resides, only that it can establish rights in some jurisdiction). Accordingly, the Panel concludes Complainant’s trademark registration of the ENFAMIL mark with the USPTO establishes Complainant’s rights in the mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Complainant alleges Respondent’s <enfamilcoupons.org> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ENFAMIL mark. The disputed domain name incorporates all of Complainant’s established ENFAMIL mark while adding the generic term “coupons” and the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.org” to Complainant’s mark. The additions of the generic term “coupons” and gTLD to Complainant’s trademark still render the Respondent’s domain name confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark. See Warner Bros. Entm’t Inc. v. Rana, FA 304696 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 21, 2004) (finding that the addition of the generic term “collection” to Complainant’s HARRY POTTER mark failed to distinguish the domain name from the mark); see also Sea World, Inc. v. JMXTRADE.com, FA 872052 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 12, 2007) (“[Since] [t]he top-level gTLD is merely a functional element required of every domain name, the <shamu.org> domain name is identical to the SHAMU mark under a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”). The Panel concludes that Respondent’s <enfamilcoupons.org> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ENFAMIL mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). The Panel finds Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been established. Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant contends Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interest in the <enfamilcoupons.org> domain name. Previous panels have found that a complainant making a prima facie showing in support of its allegations shifts the burden to the respondent to prove that it has rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). 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 Vanguard Group, Inc. v. Collazo, FA 349074 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 1, 2004) (finding that because the respondent failed to submit a Response, “Complainant’s submission has gone unopposed and its arguments undisputed. In the absence of a Response, the Panel accepts as true all reasonable allegations . . . unless clearly contradicted by the evidence.”). The Panel finds that Complainant has made a prima facie showing and because Respondent failed to make a timely response, the Panel may assume that it does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <enfamilcoupons.org> domain name. However, the Panel will examine whether the record shows Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the <enfamilcoupons.org> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c). Complainant argues Respondent is not commonly known by the <enfamilcoupons.org> domain name. The Panel finds no evidence in the record that would provide a basis for finding Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name and Respondent has not alleged any evidence supporting a finding that it is known by the disputed domain name. The WHOIS information lists the registrant of the disputed domain name as “Rien Chin,” which is not similar to the <enfamilcoupons.org> disputed domain name. Thus, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the <enfamilcoupons.org> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Tercent Inc. v. Lee Yi, FA 139720 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 10, 2003) (stating “nothing in Respondent’s WHOIS information implies that Respondent is ‘commonly known by’ the disputed domain name” as one factor in determining that Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) does not apply); see also Broadcom Corp. v. Intellifone Corp., FA 96356 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 5, 2001) (finding no rights or legitimate interests because the respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name or using the domain name in connection with a legitimate or fair use). Complainant contends Respondent uses the disputed <enfamilcoupons.org> domain name to resolve to a directory containing hyperlinks to Complainant’s website and other unrelated websites. The Panel finds that Respondent’s use of a confusingly similar domain name to operate a website featuring links to Complainant’s own website as well as links to other unrelated websites is not a bona fide offering or goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See 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).”); see also Constellation Wines U.S., Inc. v. Texas Int’l Prop. Assocs., FA 948436 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 8, 2007) (finding that the respondent had no rights or legitimate interests under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or 4(c)(iii) by using the disputed domain name to operate a website featuring links to goods and services unrelated to the complainant). The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been established. Registration and Use in Bad Faith The Panel presumes that Respondent receives click-through fees from the hyperlinks posted on the disputed domain name and resolving website. Moreover, Internet users searching for Complainant and Complainant’s products may find Respondent’s website instead because of Respondent’s use of a confusingly similar domain name. Complainant contends that Internet users will be confused as to Complainant’s affiliation with and sponsorship of the disputed domain name, resolving website and featured hyperlinks. The Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). 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)(iv) 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 MySpace, Inc. v. Myspace Bot, FA 672161 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 19, 2006) (holding that the respondent registered and used the <myspacebot.com> domain name in bad faith by diverting Internet users seeking the complainant’s website to its own website for commercial gain because the respondent likely profited from this diversion scheme). The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been established. 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 <enfamilcoupons.org> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Bruce E. Meyerson, Panelist Dated: November 16, 2010 Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page. Click Here to return to our Home Page

Source of record: FORUM . Reproduced for research; FORUM is the authoritative source.