Walmartsanantonio.com

The timeline behind walmartsanantonio.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 Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Pet Inc. Claim Number: FA1108001401971 PARTIES Complainant is Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Steven M. Levy, Pennsylvania, USA. Respondent is Pet Inc. (“Respondent”), Florida, USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <walmartsanantonio.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, Inc. 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. Honorable Karl V. Fink (Ret.) as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on August 5, 2011; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on August 9, 2011. On August 5, 2011, GoDaddy.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <walmartsanantonio.com> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, Inc. 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 August 10, 2011, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 30, 2011 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@walmartsanantonio.com. Also on August 10, 2011, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail 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 September 2, 2011, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Honorable Karl V. Fink (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" 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 <walmartsanantonio.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s WAL-MART mark. 2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <walmartsanantonio.com> domain name. 3. Respondent registered and used the <walmartsanantonio.com> domain name in bad faith. B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., is a global retailer of a wide array of product ranging from clothing to produce. Complainant owns multiple trademark registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 909,789 registered March 9, 1971) for the WAL-MART mark. Complainant uses the mark as the location name for many of its retail stores. Respondent, Pet, Inc., registered the disputed domain name on February 3, 2011. The disputed domain name resolves to a classic pay-per-click website offering links to third-party business; some of which are Complainant’s competitors. 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 claims that it has established its rights in the WAL-MART mark by registering it with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 909,789 registered March 9, 1971). Complainant has submitted what the Panel finds to be sufficient evidence verifying that the marks are duly registered and that Complainant is the owner of the registrations. Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant has established its rights in the WAL-MART mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), by registering it 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 also claims that Respondent’s <walmartsanantonio.com> domain name is confusingly similar to its WAL-MART mark. The disputed domain name includes the entire distinctive portion of the mark, only removing a hyphen, while adding the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com” and the geographic identifier “sanantonio.” The Panel finds that the changes made to Complainant’s mark by Respondent fail to remove the disputed domain name from the realm of confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Innomed Techs., Inc. v. DRP Servs., FA 221171 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 18, 2004) (finding that hyphens and top-level domains are irrelevant for purposes of the Policy); see also Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Walmarket Canada, D2000-0150 (WIPO May 2, 2000) (finding that the domain name, <walmartcanada.com> is confusingly similar to the complainant’s famous mark). Thus, the Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been established. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Panel finds that Complainant has made a prima facie case under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) indicating that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Because of this finding, the burden of proof has shifted to Respondent to show that it has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. See Swedish Match UK Ltd. v. Admin, Domain, FA 873137 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 13, 2007) (finding that once a prima facie case has been established by the complainant, the burden then shifts to the respondent to demonstrate its rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)). Respondent has failed to file a Response in this matter, which allows the Panel to assume that it lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. See Am. Express Co. v. Fang Suhendro, FA 129120 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 30, 2002) (“[B]ased on Respondent's failure to respond, it is presumed that Respondent lacks all rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.”). However, the Panel will still examine the record in its entirety and in accordance with Policy ¶ 4(c) before determining whether Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Complainant argues that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Respondent has offered no evidence to counter Complainant’s argument. The WHOIS information identifies the registrant of the disputed domain name as “Pet, Inc.,” which Complainant claims supports a finding that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. The Panel agrees with Complainant, finding that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Coppertown Drive-Thru Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 17, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <coppertown.com> domain name where there was no evidence in the record, including the WHOIS information, suggesting that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name); 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). Complainant also argues that Respondent is not engaging in a bona fide offering of goods or services or making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. Respondent’s disputed domain name resolves to a classic pay-per-click website. From this site, Respondent offers links to other businesses, some of which compete with Complainant. Presumably, Respondent collects a click-through fee for each Internet user diverted to the linked sites. The Panel finds that this use does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See 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); see also Tesco Pers. Fin. Ltd. v. Domain Mgmt. Servs., FA 877982 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 13, 2007) (finding that the respondent was not using the <tesco-finance.com> domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use by maintaining a web page with misleading links to the complainant’s competitors in the financial services industry). Thus, the Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been established. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Complainant contends that Respondent’s disputed domain name disrupts its business. The disputed domain name resolves to a site that offers links to Complainant’s competitors in the retail field. Internet users may be diverted to these competitors and purchase goods from them rather than Complainant. The Panel finds that this use disrupts Complainant’s business indicating that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith under 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 St. Lawrence Univ. v. Nextnet Tech, FA 881234 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 21, 2007) (“This Panel concludes that by redirecting Internet users seeking information on Complainant’s educational institution to competing websites, Respondent has engaged in bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).”). Complainant also contends that Respondent is gaining commercially from the disputed domain name constituting bad faith registration and use. The disputed domain name resolves to a pay-per-click website offering links to third-parties, some of which compete with Complainant. Internet users arriving at the site may click-through to the other business via the link. Each time this happens, Respondent presumably receives a click-through fee from the linked site. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is using the disputed domain name for its own commercial gain constituting bad faith registration and use under 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). Thus, 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 <walmartsanantonio.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Honorable Karl V. Fink (Ret.), Panelist Dated: September 2, 2011 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.