Msrtent.com

The timeline behind msrtent.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 Cascade Designs, Inc. v. jie xu Claim Number: FA2301002026729 PARTIES Complainant is Cascade Designs, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Timothy Casey of Baker & Hostetler LLP, Washington, USA. Respondent is jie xu (“Respondent”), China. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <msrtent.com>, registered with Name.com, Inc.. 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 Forum electronically on January 9, 2023; Forum received payment on January 9, 2023. On January 9, 2023, Name.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <msrtent.com> domain name is registered with Name.com, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Name.com, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Name.com, 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 January 12, 2023, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 1, 2023 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@msrtent.com. Also on January 12, 2023, 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 February 7, 2023, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Sandra J. Franklin 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 1. Respondent’s <msrtent.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s MSR mark. 2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <msrtent.com> domain name. 3. Respondent registered and uses the <msrtent.com> domain name in bad faith. B. Respondent did not file a Response. FINDINGS Complainant, Cascade Designs, Inc., specializes in outdoor recreation products. Complainant holds a registration for the MSR mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 4,996,019, registered July 12, 2016). Respondent registered the <msrtent.com> domain name on September 15, 2022, and uses it to pass itself off as Complainant and sell unauthorized goods. 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 MSR mark based on 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 <msrtent.com> domain name consists of the MSR mark followed by the descriptive term “tent” and the “.com” gTLD. The addition of descriptive words and a gTLD does not distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See 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 that Respondent’s <msrtent.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s MSR 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 contends that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <msrtent.com> the domain name, as it is not commonly known by the domain name. Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use its MSR mark. The WHOIS information of record names “jie xu” as the registrant of the disputed domain name. The Panel therefore finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and thus has no rights 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); see also Deutsche Lufthansa AG v. Mohamed elkassaby, FA 1801815 (Forum Sept. 17, 2018) (“The WHOIS lists “Mohamed elkassaby” as registrant of record. Coupled with Complainant’s unrebutted assertions as to absence of any affiliation between the parties, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name in accordance with Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).”). Complainant argues that Respondent fails to use the <msrtent.com> domain name for a bona fide offering of goods and services or a legitimate or fair use, because Respondent is using it to pass off as Complainant and purport to offer unauthorized versions of Complainant’s goods. Using a disputed domain name to confuse users about the association between the disputed domain name and a complainant and sell unauthorized goods is not a bona fide offering of goods and services or a legitimate or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Watts Water Technologies Inc. v. wo ci fa men zhi zao (kun shan) you xian gong si, FA 1740269 (Forum Aug. 11, 2017) (“Respondent has used the domain name to resolve to a website that mimics the color scheme associated with Complainant’s WATTS brand and displays counterfeit versions of Complainant’s products for purchase in an attempt to pass itself off as Complainant… [therefore], the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.”). Complainant provides screenshot evidence of the website at <msrtent.com>, which features Complainant’s mark and logo and offers unauthorized goods. The Panel find that this is not a bona fide offering of goods and services or a legitimate or fair use, and thus Respondent has no rights under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Registration and Use in Bad Faith Complainant asserts that Respondent registered and uses the <msrtent.com> domain name in bad faith by passing itself off as Complainant and disrupting Complainant’s business. Disrupting a complainant’s business by passing off as the complainant in order to sell unauthorized goods is evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv). See 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.”); see also CWC Direct LLC v. Ju Yu, FA1501001599464 (Forum Feb. 16, 2015) (“As Respondent is using the disputed domain name to sell counterfeit or unauthorized goods bearing the COLDWATERCREEK mark, the Panel finds evidence of Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).”) Accordingly, the Panel finds bad faith under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv). Complainant contends that Respondent registered the <msrtent.com> domain name with knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the MSR mark, based on Respondent’s use of Complainant’s name, logo and images of its products. Complainant further asserts that it first used the MSR mark in 1972, well before Respondent registered the disputed domain name on September 15, 2022. The Panel agrees and finds that Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Orbitz Worldwide, LLC v. Domain Librarian, FA 1535826 (Forum Feb. 6, 2014) (“The Panel notes that although the UDRP does not recognize ‘constructive notice’ as sufficient grounds for finding Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) bad faith, the Panel here finds actual knowledge through the name used for the domain and the use made of it.”) 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 <msrtent.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist Dated: February 8, 2023 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.