Autozonessp.com

The timeline behind autozonessp.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 AutoZone IP LLC and AutoZone Parts, Inc. v. Elcivania Maria de Souza Claim Number: FA2406002104155 PARTIES Complainant is AutoZone IP LLC and AutoZone Parts, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Gregory J. Krabacher of Epstein Becker & Green, P.C., Ohio, USA. Respondent is Elcivania Maria de Souza ("Respondent"), Brazil. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <autozonessp.com>, registered with Name SRS AB. PANEL The undersigned certifies that they have acted independently and impartially and to the best of their knowledge have no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding. Richard Hill as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on June 27, 2024; Forum received payment on June 27, 2024. On July 4, 2024, Name SRS AB confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <autozonessp.com> domain name is registered with Name SRS AB and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Name SRS AB has verified that Respondent is bound by the Name SRS AB 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 July 8, 2024, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 29, 2024 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@autozonessp.com. Also on July 8, 2024, 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 July 30, 2024, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Richard Hill 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. PRELIMINARY ISSUE: MULTIPLE COMPLAINANTS Paragraph 3(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") provides that "[a]ny person or entity may initiate an administrative proceeding by submitting a complaint." Forum's Supplemental Rule 1(e) defines "The Party Initiating a Complaint Concerning a Domain Name Registration" as a "single person or entity claiming to have rights in the domain name, or multiple persons or entities who have a sufficient nexus who can each claim to have rights to all domain names listed in the Complaint." There are two Complainants in this matter: AutoZone IP LLC and AutoZone Parts, Inc.. AutoZone IP LLC is an affiliate of AutoZone Parts, Inc. and both companies are wholly owned subsidiaries of parent company AutoZone, Inc. Previous panels have interpreted Forum's Supplemental Rule 1(e) to allow multiple parties to proceed as one party where they can show a sufficient link to each other. For example, in Vancouver Org. Comm. for the 2010 Olympic and Paralymic Games & Int'l Olympic Comm. v. Malik, FA 666119 (Forum May 12, 2006), the panel stated: It has been accepted that it is permissible for two complainants to submit a single complaint if they can demonstrate a link between the two entities such as a relationship involving a license, a partnership or an affiliation that would establish the reason for the parties bringing the complaint as one entity. In Tasty Baking, Co. & Tastykake Invs., Inc. v. Quality Hosting, FA 208854 (Forum Dec. 28, 2003), the panel treated the two complainants as a single entity where both parties held rights in trademarks contained within the disputed domain names. Likewise, in Am. Family Health Srvs. Group, LLC v. Logan, FA 220049 (Forum Feb. 6, 2004), the panel found a sufficient link between the complainants where there was a license between the parties regarding use of the TOUGHLOVE mark. The Panel finds that the evidence in the Complaint is sufficient to establish a sufficient nexus or link between the Complainants, and thus it will treat them as a single entity in this proceeding. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Complainant states that, since at least as early as 1987, it has continuously and exclusively used the AUTOZONE mark in connection with the sale of automotive parts and accessories. In 1987, Complainant already had almost 400 stores. The company, and the fame of its AUTOZONE mark, grew rapidly from there. In 1997 Complainant began selling automotive parts and accessories under the AUTOZONE mark worldwide through its website, located at the domain name <autozone.com>. At that point in time, Complainant already had 1,728 retail stores in 32 states, making it the nation's leading auto parts chain. Complainant remains the largest automotive parts and accessories retailer in the United States. Through licensed affiliates, Complainant currently owns and operates more than 7,000 AUTOZONE branded retail stores, including 6,332 stores in the United States, 751 in Mexico, and 108 in Brazil. Complainant asserts rights in the AUTOZONE mark through its registration in the United States in 1988. The mark is registered elsewhere around the world, including in Brazil. Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its AUTOZONE mark because it contains the mark in its entirety, merely adding an "s", the term "sp", and the generic top-level domain name ("gTLD") ".com". According to Complainant, Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant's mark and is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, the resolving website displays Complainant's mark and distinctive logo, and offers products that compete with those of Complainant. Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent targeted Complainant's AUTOZONE mark for the purpose of obtaining commercial gain by offering competing products and competing with Complainant for internet traffic. Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the AUTOZONE mark. Respondent engaged in typosquatting. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant owns the mark AUTOZONE, with rights dating back to 1988 and uses it to provide automotive parts and accessories. The disputed domain name was registered in 2024. Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark. The disputed domain name resolves to a web site that displays Complainant's mark and distinctive logo, and offers products that compete with those of Complainant. DISCUSSION Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and 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 disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's AUTOZONE in its entirety, merely adding a letter "s" and the term "sp", together with the ".com" generic top-level domain ("gTLD"). Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), adding a gTLD and/or generic terms and/or relevant or meaningless letters is generally insufficient in differentiating a disputed domain name from the mark it incorporates. See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("Where a relevant trademark is recognisable within a disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element."); see also Vanguard Group Inc. v. Proven Fin. Solutions, FA 572937 (Forum Nov. 18, 2005) (holding that the addition of both the word "advisors" and the gTLD ".com" did not sufficiently alter the disputed domain name to negate a finding of confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)); see also Home Depot Product Authority, LLC v. Angelo Kioussis, FA 1784554 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("The domain name contains the mark in its entirety, with only the addition of the generic letters 'sb' and the digits '2018,' plus 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 the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights or Legitimate Interests Respondent is not licensed or otherwise authorized to use Complainant's mark and is not commonly known by the disputed domain name: under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), WHOIS information may be used to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. See State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Dale Anderson, FA 1613011 (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)). Here, the WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the registrant as "Elcivania Maria de Souza". Thus the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). The resolving website displays Complainant's mark and distinctive logo and offers for sale products that compete with those of Complainant. The use of a disputed domain name to offer related products or services does not amount to a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Expedia v. chi da, FA 1940108 (Forum May 7, 2021) ("Complainant argues that the <expediashipworldwide.com> domain name was created to confuse internet users into believing that the Respondent either was, or had a relationship with the Complainant. Additionally, Respondent uses the domain name to sell transportation services, which are closely related to the services offered by the Complainant. The Panel finds that 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) and Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name."). Even the offering of unrelated services does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under the Policy. See Summit Group, LLC v. LSO, Ltd., FA 758981 (Forum Sept. 14, 2006) (finding that the respondent's use of the complainant's LIFESTYLE LOUNGE mark to redirect Internet users to respondent's own website for commercial gain does not constitute either a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)); see also Vapor Blast Mfg. Co. v. R & S Tech., Inc., FA 96577 (Forum Feb. 27, 2001) (finding that the respondent's commercial use of a confusingly similar domain name suggests that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name); see also Ripple Labs Inc. v. NGYEN NGOC PHUONG THAO, FA 1741737 (Forum Aug. 21, 2017) ("Respondent uses the [disputed] domain name to divert Internet users to Respondent's website… confusing them into believing that some sort of affiliation exists between it and Complainant… [which] is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)."). Therefore the Panel finds that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). And the Panel finds that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Respondent (who did not reply to Complainant's contentions) has not presented any plausible explanation for its use of Complainant's mark. In accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel shall draw such inferences from Respondent's silence as it considers appropriate. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent did not have a legitimate use in mind when registering the disputed domain name. Indeed, as already noted, the resolving website offers products that complete with those of Complainant. This is evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See MathForum.com, LLC v. Weiguang Huang, D2000-0743 (WIPO Aug. 17, 2000) (finding bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the respondent registered a domain name confusingly similar to the complainant's mark and the domain name was used to host a commercial website that offered similar services offered by the complainant under its mark). Further, even an offering of unrelated services constitutes evidence of bad faith registration and use. See Allianz of Am. Corp. v. Bond, FA 680624 (Forum June 2, 2006) (finding bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the respondent was diverting Internet users searching for the complainant to its own website and likely profiting); see also Fossil, Inc. v. wwwfossil-watch.org c/o Hostmaster, FA 335513 (Forum Nov. 9, 2004) (finding bad faith where respondent attempted to profit from the fame of complainant's trademark by attracting internet traffic to his website). Thus the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). Further, Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant's mark: the resolving website displays Complainant's mark and distinctive logo. While constructive notice is insufficient to demonstrate bad faith, actual knowledge of a complainant's rights in a mark prior to registration may be evidence of bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Custom Modular Direct LLC v. Custom Modular Homes Inc., FA 1140580 (Forum Apr. 8, 2008) ("There is no place for constructive notice under the Policy."); see also 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."); see also Univision Comm'cns Inc. v. Norte, FA 1000079 (Forum Aug. 16, 2007) (rejecting the respondent's contention that it did not register the disputed domain name in bad faith since the panel found that the respondent had knowledge of the complainant's rights in the UNIVISION mark when registering the disputed domain name). The Panel finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the mark prior to Respondent's registration of the disputed domain name and that this constitutes bad faith under 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 <autozonessp.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Richard Hill, Panelist Dated: July 30, 2024 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.