Honeywell-thermostat.com, Honeywellthermostat.com

The timeline behind honeywell-thermostat.com

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 Honeywell International Inc. v. Air & Water, Inc. Claim Number: FA1307001508784 PARTIES Complainant is Honeywell International Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Peter S. Sloane of Leason Ellis LLP, New York, USA. Respondent is Air & Water, Inc. (“Respondent”), California, USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES The domain names at issue are <honeywell-thermostat.com> registered with ADVANCED INTERNET TECHNOLOGIES, Inc. and <honeywellthermostat.com> registered with GODADDY.COM, LLC. 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. Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on July 9, 2013; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on July 9, 2013. On July 10, 2013, GODADDY.COM, LLC; ADVANCED INTERNET TECHNOLOGIES, INC. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <honeywell-thermostat.com> and <honeywellthermostat.com> domain names are registered with ADVANCED INTERNET TECHNOLOGIES, INC. and GODADDY.COM, LLC, respectively, and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. GODADDY.COM, LLC and ADVANCED INTERNET TECHNOLOGIES, INC. have verified that Respondent is bound by the GODADDY.COM, LLC and ADVANCED INTERNET TECHNOLOGIES, INC. registration agreements 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 July 12, 2013, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 1, 2013 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@honeywell-thermostat.com, postmaster@honeywellthermostat.com. Also on July 12, 2013, 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 August 6, 2013, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Sandra J. Franklin 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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant makes the following assertions: 1. Respondent’s <honeywell-thermostat.com> and <honeywellthermostat.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s HONEYWELL mark. 2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <honeywell-thermostat.com> and <honeywellthermostat.com> domain names. 3. Respondent registered and used the <honeywell-thermostat.com> and <honeywellthermostat.com> domain names in bad faith. B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant uses its HONEYWELL mark to promote and sell, amongst other things, thermostats and other products to regulate heating and cooling systems. Complainant has registered this mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") (Reg. No. 520,350 registered on Jan. 31, 1950). Respondent registered the <honeywell-thermostat.com> domain name on November 27, 2011 and the <honeywellthermostat.com> domain name on June 23, 2010. Respondent uses the <honeywell-thermostat.com> domain name to offer goods competing with Complainant’s goods. The <honeywellthermostat.com> domain name does not resolve to an active website. 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." 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. 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.”). Identical and/or Confusingly Similar The Panel finds that Complainant’s USPTO registration is adequate evidence of Complainant’s rights in the HONEYWELL mark. See Intel Corp. v. Macare, FA 660685 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 26, 2006) (finding that the complainant had established rights in the PENTIUM, CENTRINO and INTEL INSIDE marks by registering the marks with the USPTO). Respondent’s <honeywell-thermostat.com> and <honeywellthermostat.com> domain names incorporate the entire HONEYWELL mark, along with the descriptive term “thermostat,” the gTLD “.com,” and a hyphen, all non-distinctive changes to Complainant’s mark. 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 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 finds that Respondent’s <honeywell-thermostat.com> and <honeywellthermostat.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s HONEYWELL mark. The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights or Legitimate Interests Once Complainant makes a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See 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 UDRP ¶ 4(a)(ii) before the burden shifts to the respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in a domain name); see also AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 25, 2006) (“Complainant must first make a prima facie showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names, which burden is light. If Complainant satisfies its burden, then the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain names.”). Complainant argues that Respondent is not commonly known by the <honeywell-thermostat.com> and <honeywellthermostat.com> domain names. The WHOIS information indicates that Respondent is known as “Air & Water, Inc.” Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known as <honeywell-thermostat.com> and <honeywellthermostat.com> within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(i). See 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 argues that Respondent is operating its own business through the <honeywell-thermostat.com> domain name, but sells Complainant’s goods, without Complainant’s authorization, along with at least ten competing brands. The Panel notes that the <honeywell-thermostat.com> domain name resolves to a website that promotes an array of thermostats manufactured by both Complainant and its competitors. The Panel finds that this is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i). 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).”). Complainant also claims that the <honeywellthermostat.com> domain name does not resolve to any active website, and that such a use provides no rights or legitimate interests to Respondent. The Panel agrees and finds that inactive use does not constitute a Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See Bloomberg L.P. v. SC Media Servs. & Info. SRL, FA 296583 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 2, 2004) (“Respondent is wholly appropriating Complainant’s mark and is not using the <bloomberg.ro> domain name in connection with an active website. The Panel finds that the [failure to make an active use] of a domain name that is identical to Complainant’s mark is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and it is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”). The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Registration and Use in Bad Faith Complainant argues that Respondent seeks to confuse visitors of the <honeywell-thermostat.com> domain name into believing the various competing goods offered therein are affiliated with Complainant. The Panel notes that the <honeywell-thermostat.com> domain name resolves to a website that offers Complainant’s goods, along with competing goods, using Complainant’s mark on the website. The Panel finds that this demonstrates Respondent’s bad faith intent to register and use the domain name to create a false association with Complainant. See 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 <honeywellthermostat.com> domain name does not resolve to an active website, and Complainant argues that an absence of any meaningful use of this domain name suggests bad faith. The Panel agrees and finds that inactive use constitutes bad faith use and registration under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Caravan Club v. Mrgsale, FA 95314 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 30, 2000) (finding that the respondent made no use of the domain name or website that connects with the domain name, and that [failure to make an active use] of a domain name permits an inference of registration and use in bad faith). Respondent expressly acknowledges Complainant and the HONEYWELL mark on the domain name’s website, boasting about Complainant and its reputation on the <honeywell-thermostat.com> domain name’s website. Respondent even displays Complainant’s logos and trademarks on the <honeywell-thermostat.com> domain name’s website. The Panel finds that, based upon Respondent’s possession of both domain names, one of which hosts websites that explicitly use the HONEYWELL mark, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s mark, a further indication of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent "actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name"). 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 <honeywell-thermostat.com> and <honeywellthermostat.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist Dated: August 13, 2013 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.