Hobbylobbyfurniture.com

The timeline behind hobbylobbyfurniture.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 Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. william white Claim Number: FA2209002011786 PARTIES Complainant is Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Clint B. Sloan of Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., Oklahoma, USA. Respondent is william white (“Respondent”), Virginia, USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <hobbylobbyfurniture.com>, registered with GoDaddy.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. James Bridgeman SC as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on September 13, 2022; Forum received payment on September 13, 2022. On September 13, 2022, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <hobbylobbyfurniture.com> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.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 September 14, 2022, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of October 4, 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@hobbylobbyfurniture.com. Also on September 14, 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, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On October 10, 2022, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed James Bridgeman SC as Panelist. Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that 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, 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 disputed domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Complainant claims rights in the HOBBY LOBBY mark established by its ownership of the portfolio of service mark registrations described below and use of the mark in its retail business. Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name <hobbylobbyfurniture.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant’s HOBBY LOBBY mark, because the disputed domain name incorporates Complainant’s mark in its entirety, adding only the generic word “furniture” and the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) extension <.com>. Complainant contends that the addition of the generic or descriptive word “furniture” does not sufficiently distinguish the disputed domain name from the HOBBY LOBBY service mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Sketchers U.S.A., Inc. and Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II v. Svensson Viljae, FA 1784650 (Forum June 1, 2018) (finding confusing similarity where “[t]he disputed domain name <skechers-outlet.com> adds a hyphen and the generic term ‘outlet’ to Complainant’s registered SKECHERS mark, and appends the ‘.com’ top-level domain.”). Complainant submits that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, arguing that Complainant’s exclusive rights in and use of the HOBBY LOBBY predate the registration of the disputed domain name on February 18, 2022 and Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use the HOBBY LOBBY mark. Complainant further contends that the WHOIS information for the registration of the disputed domain name supports a finding that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, especially where a privacy service has been engaged. See State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Dale Anderson, FA1504001613011 (Forum May 21, 2015) (concluding that because the WHOIS record lists “Dale Anderson” as the registrant of the disputed domain name, the respondent was not commonly known by the <statefarmforum.com> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)). Complainant then alleges that Respondent’s registration and use of <hobbylobbyfurniture.com> constitutes bad faith, because Respondent appears to hold the domain name passively as illustrated by the screen capture of the webpage to which the disputed domain name resolves with is attached as an exhibit in an annex to the Complaint. Complainant contends that Respondent’s passive holding of the disputed domain name constitutes use in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Dermtek Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Sang Im / Private Registration, FA1310001522081 (Forum Nov. 19, 2013) (holding that because the respondent’s website contained no content related to the domain name and instead generated the error message “Error 400-Bad Request,” the respondent had registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)). Additionally, Complainant alleges that Respondent registered the confusingly similar disputed domain name <hobbylobbyfurniture.com> to create confusion among internet users because of the disputed domain name infers an association with, or sponsorship by, Complainant. Complainant argues furthermore that nearly all the results from a browser search for the phrase “hobbylobbyfurniture” pertain to Complainant, as shown in an exhibit annexed to the Complaint. Complainant concludes that Respondent’s use of the HOBBY LOBBY trademark to create a likelihood of confusion between its domain name and Complainant’s related trademarks shows Respondent’s bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Entrepreneur Media, Inc. v. Smith, 279 F.3d 1135, 1148 (9th Cir. 2002) (“While an intent to confuse consumers is not required for a finding of trademark infringement, intent to deceive is strong evidence of a likelihood of confusion.”). B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant is a large retailer which carries on business as HOBBY LOBBY for which it owns the following portfolio of service mark registrations · United States registered service mark HOBBY LOBBY registration number 2,866,317, registered on the Principal Register on July 27, 2004 for services in international class 35; · United States registered service mark HOBBY LOBBY registration number 3,068,117 registered on the Principal Register on March 14, 2006 for services in international class 35; · United States registered service mark HOBBY LOBBY registration number 4,280,022 registered on the Principal Register on January 22, 2013 for services in international class 35. The disputed domain name <hobbylobbyfurniture.com> was registered on February 18, 2019 and resolves to a parked web page maintained by the Registrar. There is no information available about Respondent except for that provided in the Complaint, the Registrar’s WhoIs and the the information provided by the Registrar in response to the enquiry by the Forum for details of the registration of the disputed domain name in the course of this proceeding. 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 has provided uncontested evidence of its ownership and use of the HOBBY LOBBY trademark and service marks, established by its ownership of its portfolio of trademark and service mark-registrations described above and extensive use of the mark in providing its Internet services. The disputed domain name <hobbylobbyfurniture.com> consists of Complainant’s HOBBY LOBBY mark in its entirety, followed by the word “furniture” and the gTLD extension <.com>. Complainant’s HOBBY LOBBY mark is the dominant and only distinctive element in the disputed domain name. The term “furniture” is generic and descriptive and in context would be considered by Internet users to refer to furniture which sells in its stores. In the context of this Complaint, the gTLD extension <.com> would be considered by Internet users as a necessary technical requirement for a domain name and therefore does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and Complainant’s HOBBY LOBBY mark. This Panel finds therefore that the disputed domain name <hobbylobbyfurniture.com> is confusingly similar to the HOBBY LOBBY mark in which Complainant has rights and Complainant has therefore succeeded in the first element of the test in Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant has made out a prima facie case that Respondent has no rights legitimate interests in the disputed domain name arguing that · Complainant has exclusive rights to use the HOBBY LOBBY mark and Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use the mark; · Complainant’s rights predate the registration of the disputed domain name on February 18, 2022; · the WHOIS information for the disputed domain registration supports a finding that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, especially since a privacy service has been engaged to conceal Respondent’s identity. It is well established that once a complainant makes out a prima facie case that a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name at issue, the burden of production shifts to the respondent to prove its rights or legitimate interests. Respondent has failed to discharge that burden and therefore this Panel must find that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Complainant has therefore succeeded in the second element of the test in Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Registration and Use in Bad Faith When the disputed domain name was chosen and registered on February 18, 2019, Complainant had already registered and established a reputation in the use of the HOBBY LOBBY mark. The HOBBY LOBBY mark has a high level of distinctiveness and Complainant has adduced evidence in the form of screen captures of an Internet search which proves that it is a vendor of furniture in its retail business. It is therefore implausible that the disputed domain name which is composed of Complainant’s mark and the word “furniture”, was registered without knowledge of the HOBBY LOBBY mark and Complainant’s rights and goodwill using the mark as a retailer of furniture products and other goods. This Panel finds therefore that on the balance of probabilities the disputed domain name was chosen and registered in bad faith to create the impression of an association with Complainant’s name and mark, and to target and take predatory advantage of Complainant’s mark and goodwill in the Complainant’s HOBBY LOBBY mark. The web page to which the disputed domain name resolves which is exhibited in as a screen capture in an annex to the Complaint, expressly states that the disputed domain name is parked free, courtesy of the Registrar. Taking into account the totality of the circumstances shown in the record, and considering the strong degree of distinctiveness of Complainant’s HOBBY LOBBY mark, the failure of Respondent to submit a Response or to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good-faith use, that Respondent has availed of a privacy service to conceal his identity and the implausibility of any good faith use of the disputed domain name that has such a distinctive mark as its dominant element, this Panel finds that the passive holding of the disputed by Respondent constitutes use in bad faith for the purposes of the Policy. As this Panel has found that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith, Complainant has succeeded in the third element of the test in 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 <hobbylobbyfurniture.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. James Bridgeman SC Panelist Dated: October 12, 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.