Geospecialtychemicals.com

The timeline behind geospecialtychemicals.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 GEO Specialty Chemicals, Inc. v. Susan Gibbson Claim Number: FA2210002017017 PARTIES Complainant is GEO Specialty Chemicals, Inc. (“Complainant”), USA, represented by Carrie A. Shufflebarger of Thompson Hine LLP, Ohio. Respondent is Susan Gibbson (“Respondent”), Cameroon. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <geospecialtychemicals.com>, registered with NameCheap, 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. Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on October 21, 2022; Forum received payment on October 21, 2022. On October 21, 2022, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <geospecialtychemicals.com> domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. NameCheap, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameCheap, 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 October 24, 2022, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of November 14, 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@geospecialtychemicals.com. Also on October 24, 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 November 16, 2022, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. 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 domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Complainant is a diverse supplier of specialty chemicals and materials. Complainant claims rights in the GEO mark through its registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 2,401,438, registered on November 7, 2000). The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s GEO mark, as it incorporates the mark in its entirety, only adding the generic terms “specialty” and “chemicals” which are parts of Complainant’s name and the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”). ii) Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Complainant authorized or licensed Respondent to use its GEO mark in the disputed domain name. Respondent does not use the domain name in connection with any bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate non-commercial or fair use. Respondent uses the disputed domain name to pass itself off as Complainant. iii) Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent’s registration and use of the domain name are primarily to disrupt the business of Complainant by passing Respondent off as Complainant. B. Respondent Respondent did not submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS 1. The disputed domain name was registered on June 29, 2022. 2. Complainant has established rights in the GEO mark through its registration of the mark with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 2,401,438, registered on November 7, 2000). 3. Respondent’s registration and use of the domain name are primarily to disrupt the business of Complainant by passing Respondent off as Complainant. 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 claims rights in the in the GEO mark through its registration with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 2,401,438, registered on November 7, 2000). Registration with the USPTO is generally sufficient in demonstrating rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Ecolab USA Inc. v. (name redacted), FA 2003001888902 (Forum Apr. 20, 2020) (“Complainant’s ownership of a USPTO registration for ECOLAB is sufficient to demonstrate its rights in a mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”). As Complainant provides evidence of its registration with the USPTO, the Panel finds Complainant has rights in the GEO mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Complainant argues that the disputed domain name <geospecialtychemicals.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant’s GEO mark, as it incorporates the mark in its entirety, only adding the generic terms “specialty” and “chemicals” which are parts of Complainant’s name, and the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”). The use of a mark in its entirety with the mere addition of a descriptive term or a gTLD fails to sufficiently distinguish a disputed domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Marquette Golf Club v. Al Perkins, FA 1738263 (Forum July 27, 2017) (“When a respondent’s domain name incorporates a mark in its entirety and merely adds a generic top-level domain (gTLD), “.com”, then the Panel may find that the disputed domain name is identical to Complainant’s mark.”); The Toronto-Dominion Bank v. George Whitehead, FA 1784412 (Forum June 11, 2018) (“[S]light differences between domain names and registered marks, such as the addition of words that describe the goods or services in connection with the mark and gTLDs, do not distinguish the domain name from the mark incorporated therein per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”).Therefore, the Panel finds the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark pursuant to 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 that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Complainant authorized or licensed to Respondent any rights in the GEO mark. Where 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 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)). Additionally, lack of authorization to use a complainant’s mark may indicate that the respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. See Alaska Air Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines v. Song Bin, FA1408001574905 (Forum Sept. 17, 2014) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name as demonstrated by the WHOIS information and based on the fact that the complainant had not licensed or authorized the respondent to use its ALASKA AIRLINES mark). The WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the registrant as “Susan Gibbson.” Additionally, there is no evidence to suggest that Respondent was authorized to use Complainant’s GEO mark in the disputed domain name. Therefore, the Panel finds Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). Complainant argues that Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services, nor for any legitimate non-commercial or fair use. Complainant specifically points out that Respondent uses the disputed domain name to pass itself off as Complainant. The disputed domain name’s resolving website includes Complainant’s actual physical address in Lafayette, Indiana, fraudulently suggesting that this domain name is Complainant’s official website or is otherwise affiliated with Complainant. Respondent is also making unauthorized use of other content owned by another third-party company. Complainant provides a screenshot of the disputed domain name’s resolving webpage. The Panel finds that the use of the disputed domain name to pass Respondent off as Complainant does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor any legitimate non-commercial or fair use. 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 that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent’s registration and use of the domain name are primarily to disrupt the business of Complainant by passing Respondent off as Complainant. Respondent is intentionally attempting to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s website. Use of a disputed domain name to pass off as a complainant and offer competing or counterfeited goods may be evidence of bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv). See Ripple Labs Inc. v. Jessie McKoy / Ripple Reserve Fund, FA 1790949 (Forum July 9, 2018) (finding bad faith per Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv) where the respondent used the disputed domain name to resolve to a website upon which the respondent passes off as the complainant and offers online cryptocurrency services in direct competition with the complainant’s business), see also Guess? IP Holder L.P. and Guess?, Inc. v. LI FANGLIN, FA 1610067 (Forum Apr. 25, 2015) (finding respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) because the respondent used the resolving website to sell the complainant’s products, using images copied directly from the complainant’s website), 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 that Complainant has provided the Panel with screenshots of the disputed domain name's resolving website which includes Complainant’s actual physical address in Lafayette, Indiana, fraudulently suggesting that this domain name is Complainant’s official website or is otherwise affiliated with Complainant. Respondent is also making unauthorized use of other content owned by another third-party company. Respondent also has copied content from The Chemical Company’s website. Therefore, the Panel agrees and finds that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith per Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) or (iv). 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 <geospecialtychemicals.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq., Panelist Dated: November 22, 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.