Brooksoutletstore.com

The timeline behind brooksoutletstore.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.

DECISION Brooks Sports, Inc. v. Phillipp Dreher Claim Number: FA2101001930218 PARTIES Complainant is Brooks Sports, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Mayura I. Noordyke of Cozen O’Connor, Minnesota, USA. Respondent is Phillipp Dreher (“Respondent”), Germany. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <brooksoutletstore.com>, registered with NameSilo, 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. Ho Hyun Nahm, Esq. as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on January 29, 2021; the Forum received payment on January 29, 2021. On January 29, 2021, NameSilo, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <brooksoutletstore.com> domain name is registered with NameSilo, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameSilo, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameSilo, 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 February 1, 2021, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 22, 2021 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@brooksoutletstore.com. Also on February 1, 2021, 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 Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On February 25, 2021, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Ho Hyun Nahm, Esq. as Panelist. Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the 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 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 i) Complainant is a world-leader in athletic clothing and footwear, including high-performance running shoes. Complainant has rights in the BROOKS mark through Complainant’s registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g. Reg. No. 1,161,034, registered July 14, 1981). The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s BROOKS mark as it merely adds the generic terms “outlet” and “store” and the generic top-level domain “.com” to Complainant’s mark. ii) Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name nor has Respondent been authorized by Complainant to use the BROOKS mark. Respondent has not used the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services as Respondent uses it to pass off as Complainant and offers to sell Complainant’s products on an unauthorized basis. iii) Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent uses the disputed domain name to pass off as Complainant and offers to sell Complainant’s products on an unauthorized basis. Additionally, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights to the BROOKS mark prior to registering the disputed domain name as shown by Respondent’s use of the mark. B. Respondent Respondent did not submit a response in this proceeding. FINDINGS 1. The disputed domain name was registered on December 9, 2020. 2. Complainant has established rights in the BROOKS mark through Complainant’s registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g. Reg. No. 1,161,034, registered July 14, 1981). 3. The website associated with the disputed domain name displays Complainant’s BROOKS mark in the banner and displays images of Complainant’s products offered for sale at discount rates, using Complainant’s trademarks, product names, and product images in the listings. 4. The footer of Respondent’s website includes a copyright notice that contains Complainant’s mark. 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(f), 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 set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at ¶ 4.3; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (“Because Complainant did not produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations [. . .] the Panel finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint”). Identical and/or Confusingly Similar Complainant asserts rights in the BROOKS mark through its registration of the mark with the USPTO (e.g. Reg. No. 1,161,034, registered July 14, 1981). Registration of a mark with the USPTO is sufficient to demonstrate rights in the mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See DIRECTV, LLC v. The Pearline Group, FA 1818749 (Forum Dec. 30, 2018) (“Complainant’s ownership of a USPTO registration for DIRECTV demonstrate its rights in such mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”). Therefore, the Panel finds Complainant has demonstrated rights in the BROOKS mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Complainant argues the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s BROOKS mark as it adds the generic terms “outlet” and “store” and the generic top-level domain “.com” to Complainant’s mark. Adding generic terms and a gTLD to a mark fails to sufficiently distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See MTD Products Inc. v. J Randall Shank, FA 1783050 (Forum June 27, 2018) (“The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark as it wholly incorporates the CUB CADET mark before appending the generic terms ‘genuine’ and ‘parts’ as well as the ‘.com’ gTLD.”). Therefore, the Panel finds the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)); see also Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) (“Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests”). Complainant contends Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name as Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name nor has Complainant authorized or licensed to Respondent any rights in the BROOKS mark. When a response is lacking, WHOIS information may be used to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Chevron Intellectual Property LLC v. Fred Wallace, FA1506001626022 (Forum July 27, 2015) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <chevron-europe.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), as the WHOIS information named “Fred Wallace” as registrant of the disputed domain name). Additionally, lack of authorization to use a complainant’s mark may indicate that a respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. See Emerson Electric Co. v. golden humble / golden globals, FA 1787128 (Forum June 11, 2018) (“lack of evidence in the record to indicate a respondent is authorized to use [the] complainant’s mark may support a finding that [the] respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)”). Here, the WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the registrant as “Phillipp Dreher” and Complainant argues there is no other evidence to suggest that Respondent was authorized to use the BROOKS mark. Therefore, the Panel finds Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). Complainant also argues that Respondent fails to use the disputed name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use as Respondent uses the disputed domain name to pass off as Complainant and offer to sell Complainant’s products on an unauthorized basis. Passing off as a complainant while offering to sell the complainant’s products on an unauthorized basis may not be a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See ShipChain, Inc. v. 谢东东 / 谢东东, FA 1785189 (Forum June 21, 2018) (“The resolving webpages between Complainant’s and Respondent’s websites are virtually the same. Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name does not confer rights and legitimate interests under Policy ¶¶4(c)(i) and (iii).”); see also Caterpillar Inc. v. Huth, FA 169056 (Forum Sept. 2, 2003) (“Respondent lacks rights in the disputed domain name because Respondent competes with Complainant by selling Complainant's used parts without a license from Complainant to do so.”). Complainant argues the homepage associated with the disputed domain name displays the BROOKS mark in the banner and displays images of Complainant’s products offered for sale at discount rates, using Complainant’s trademarks, product names, and product images in the listings. Additionally, the footer of Respondent’s website includes a copyright notice that contains Complainant’s mark. Therefore, the Panel finds Respondent fails to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). The Panel finds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case that arises from the considerations above. All of these matters go to make out the prima facie case against Respondent. As Respondent has not filed a Response or attempted by any other means to rebut the prima facie case against it, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Complainant contends Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith because Respondent uses the disputed domain name to pass off as Complainant and offer to sell Complainant’s products on unauthorized basis. Passing off as a complainant while offering to sell identical and/or competing products can evidence bad faith registration and use per Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (b)(iv). See G.D. Searle & Co. v. Celebrex Cox-2 Vioxx.com, FA 124508 (Forum Oct. 16, 2002) (“Unauthorized use of Complainant’s CELEBREX mark to sell Complainant’s products represents bad faith use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).”); see also Bittrex, Inc. v. Wuxi Yilian LLC, FA 1760517 (Forum Dec. 27, 2017) (finding bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where “Respondent registered and uses the <lbittrex.com> domain name in bad faith by directing Internet users to a website that mimics Complainant’s own website in order to confuse users into believing that Respondent is Complainant, or is otherwise affiliated or associated with Complainant.”). The Panel recalls Complainant provides screenshots of Respondent’s resolving webpage, in which Respondent displays the BROOKS mark in the banner and displays images of Complainant’s products offered for sale, using Complainant’s trademarks, product name, and product images in the listings. Therefore, the Panel finds Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith per Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv). Complainant also contends Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the BROOKS mark based on Respondent’s use of the BROOKS mark. Use of a mark to divert Internet traffic to a disputed domain name can demonstrate actual knowledge of a complainant’s rights in a mark at registration and show bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See iFinex Inc. v. xu shuaiwei, FA 1760249 (Forum Jan. 1, 2018) (“Respondent’s prior knowledge is evident from the notoriety of Complainant’s BITFINEX trademark as well as from Respondent’s use of its trademark laden domain name to direct internet traffic to a website which is a direct competitor of Complainant”). Complainant argues that Respondent’s conduct shows that Respondent actually knew about Complainant and Complainant’s BROOKS mark as Respondent used Complainant’s BROOKS mark in the disputed domain name to divert visitors to Respondent’s own website for commercial gain and Respondent has registered and is using the domain name that incorporate a well-known trademark. The Panel infers, due to the manner of use of the disputed domain name and the notoriety of Complainant’s mark that Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith per 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 <brooksoutletstore.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Ho Hyun Nahm, Esq., Panelist Dated: March 5, 2021 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.