Farmarsbusinessnetwork.com, Farmersbusinessnetvvork.com

The timeline behind farmarsbusinessnetwork.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.

DECISION Farmer’s Business Network, Inc. v. micheal kelly Claim Number: FA2201001979430 PARTIES Complainant is Farmer’s Business Network, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by William Knox, California, USA. Respondent is micheal kelly (“Respondent”), Nigeria. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES The domain names at issue are <farmarsbusinessnetwork.com> and <farmersbusinessnetvvork.com>, registered with NameSilo, LLC. PANEL The undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of 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 Forum electronically on January 6, 2022; the Forum received payment on January 6, 2022. On January 7, 2022, NameSilo, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <farmarsbusinessnetwork.com> and <farmersbusinessnetvvork.com> domain names are registered with NameSilo, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. 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 January 7, 2022, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of January 27, 2022 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@farmarsbusinessnetwork.com, postmaster@farmersbusinessnetvvork.com. Also on January 7, 2022, 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 1, 2022, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Sandra J. Franklin 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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant 1. Respondent’s <farmarsbusinessnetwork.com> and <farmersbusinessnetvvork.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s FARMERS BUSINESS NETWORK mark. 2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <farmarsbusinessnetwork.com> and <farmersbusinessnetvvork.com> domain names. 3. Respondent registered and uses the <farmarsbusinessnetwork.com> and <farmersbusinessnetvvork.com> domain names are in bad faith. B. Respondent did not file a Response. FINDINGS Complainant holds a registration for the FARMERS BUSINESS NETWORK mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 4,957,547 – Registered on May 10, 2016). Respondent registered the <farmarsbusinessnetwork.com> domain name on January 12, 2021, and the <farmersbusinessnetvvork.com> domain name on January 28, 2021, and uses them to resolve to blank webpages. 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 The Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the FARMERS BUSINESS NETWORK mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through its registration with the USPTO. 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).”). Respondent’s <farmarsbusinessnetwork.com> and <farmersbusinessnetvvork.com> domain names use slightly misspelled versions of Complainant’s FARMERS BUSINESS NETWORK mark and simply add the “.com” gTLD to form a domain name. A domain name may be confusingly similar to a complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), despite simple misspellings. See Omaha Steaks International, Inc. v. DN Manager / Whois-Privacy.Net Ltd, FA 1610122 (Forum July 9, 2015) (finding, “The domain name differs from the mark only in that the domain name substitutes the letter ‘a’ in the word ‘steak’ with the letter ‘c’ and adds the generic Top Level Domain (‘gTLD’) ‘.com.’ These alterations of the mark, made in forming the domain name, do not save it from the realm of confusing similarity under the standards of the Policy.”). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent’s <farmarsbusinessnetwork.com> and <farmersbusinessnetvvork.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s FARMERS BUSINESS NETWORK 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 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 argues that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <farmarsbusinessnetwork.com> and <farmersbusinessnetvvork.com> domain names because Respondent is not commonly known by the domain names. Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use its FARMERS BUSINESS NETWORK mark. The WHOIS information identifies “micheal kelly” as the registrant of the disputed domain names. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the <farmarsbusinessnetwork.com> and <farmersbusinessnetvvork.com> domain names, and thus has no rights under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Timothy Mays aka Linda Haley aka Edith Barberdi, FA1504001617061 (Forum June 9, 2015) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <amazondevice.org>, <amazondevices.org> and <buyamazondevices.com> domain names under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), as the pertinent WHOIS information identified “Timothy Mays,” “Linda Haley,” and “Edith Barberdi” as registrants of the disputed domain names). Complainant also argues that Respondent does not use the <farmarsbusinessnetwork.com> and <farmersbusinessnetvvork.com> domain names for a bona fide offering of goods or services or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use because Respondent is not making any demonstrable preparations to use the domain name. Screenshots provided by Complainant for each of the domain names show a webpage that does not have any substantive content. The Panel finds that this is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, and thus Respondent has no rights under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See George Weston Bakeries Inc. v. McBroom, FA 933276 (Forum Apr. 25, 2007) (finding that the respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in a domain name under either Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) where it failed to make any active use of the domain name). The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Registration and Use in Bad Faith Complainant argues that Respondent registered and uses the <farmarsbusinessnetwork.com> and <farmersbusinessnetvvork.com> domain names in bad faith because the domain names do not resolve to an active website. The Panel agrees and finds bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Dr. Keenan Cofield, FA 1799574 (Forum Sept. 10, 2018) (finding bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) where “the domain name initially resolved to a web page with a “website coming soon” message, and now resolves to an error page with no content.”). Complainant argues that Respondent registered the disputed domain names with actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the FARMERS BUSINESS NETWORK mark because Complainant used the mark in commerce for approximately seven years prior to registration of the domain names. The Panel agrees, also noting the intentional misspelling of Complainant’s FARMERS BUSINESS NETWORK mark in the disputed domain names, and finds further bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Yahoo! Inc. v. Butler, FA 744444 (Forum Aug. 17, 2006) (finding bad faith where the respondent was “well-aware” of the complainant’s YAHOO! mark at the time of registration). 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 <farmarsbusinessnetwork.com> and <farmersbusinessnetvvork.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist Dated: February 2, 2022 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.