Jockofuels.com

The timeline behind jockofuels.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.

NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM DECISION JOCKO COMMAND, LLC v. amanda montell Claim Number: FA2409002115167 PARTIES Complainant is JOCKO COMMAND, LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Ryan Kaiser and Manon Burns of Amin Wasserman Gurnani LLP, Illinois, USA. Respondent is Amanda Montell ("Respondent"), United Kingdom. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <jockofuels.com>, registered with NameCheap, Inc. 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. Héctor Ariel Manoff as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on September 11, 2024; Forum received payment on September 11, 2024. On September 11, 2024, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <jockofuels.com> domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. 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 September 12, 2024, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of October 2, 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@jockofuels.com. Also on September 12, 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 October 3, 2024, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Héctor Ariel Manoff 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- Complainant, Jocko Command, LLC, owns JOCKO trademark in classes 5 (for dietary supplements; dietary food supplements; vitamin supplements; mineral nutritional supplements; powdered nutritional supplement drink mix), 30 (for tea; white tea; iced tea) and 41 (for entertainment services, namely, providing podcasts in the fields of leadership, strategy, tactics and fitness). 2- Complainant also owns JOCKO GO trademark in classes 5 (for Dietary supplements and nutritional supplements) and 32 (for energy drinks) and JOCKO DISCIPLINE GO in class 32 (for energy drinks; and energy drinks enhanced with nootropics). 3- Complainant owns common law rights in JOCKO FUEL trademark regarding goods of classes 5, 21, 30 and 32. 4- Jocko has continuously used its JOCKO trademark since 2015. 5- The use of JOCKO FUEL started in 2019. 6- The JOCKO marks have become well-recognized by consumers. 7- The disputed domain name, <jockofuels.com>, was registered by Respondent in 2024 and is confusingly similar in sound, sight, and meaning to the JOCKO marks. 8- The disputed domain name contains the identical mark JOCKO and is intended to lead the consumers into confusion. 9- Respondent uses the domain name to deceive consumers by copying genuine website, assets, images, and products. 10- Respondent is using e-mail addresses intending to mimic an authentic Jocko email account to lead consumers to believe they are purchasing from the authentic Jocko website. 11- The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the JOCKO marks. 12- Respondent is not associated with or authorized by Jocko. 13- Respondent registered the domain name to trade off of good will in the JOCKO marks. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant, Jocko Command, LLC, owns U.S. trademark registrations for the mark JOCKO, JOCKO FUEL, JOCKO GO and JOCKO DISCIPLINE GO and also operates the website www.jockofuel.com, which is used in connection with dietary, vitamin and mineral supplements and energy drinks since at least 2019. Respondent has registered the domain <jockofuels.com> in August 2024 and it is being used in bad faith. 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 Panel finds that the disputed domain name <jockofuels.com> is nearly identical and confusingly similar to Complainant's registered trademarks JOCKO and JOCKO FUEL on which Complainant has common rights. (Exhibit A). In addition, the disputed domain name is almost identical to Complainant's domain name <jockofuel.com> which has been registered and used since at least 2019 and before Respondent's registration (2024). The disputed domain name <jockofuels.com> incorporates Complainant's domain name and adds an "s" along with the generic top-level domain ("gTLD") ".COM". The Panel finds that the term JOCKO is a fanciful and arbitrary term in relation to the products identified by Complainant and it is clear that Respondent knew it belonged to Complainant. Respondent has just added a letter "s". The Panel finds that the domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark and domain name since the additional element is not sufficiently distinctive. See State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Marco Zapata / The Chrome Depot, Inc., FA 2096735 ("The addition of a hyphen to a mark does not distinguish the disputed domain name from the mark incorporated therein per Policy 4(a)(i)."). See also ADP, LLC. v. Ella Magal, FA 1773958 (Forum Aug. 2, 2017). ("Respondent's <workforce-now.com> domain name appropriates the dominant portion of Complainant's ADP WORKFORCE NOW mark and adds a hyphen and the gTLD ".com." These changes do not sufficiently distinguish the disputed domain name from the ADP WORKFORCE NOW mark."). The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical and confusingly similar to JOCKO and JOCKO FUEL marks, in which Complainant has rights, under 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."). The Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the <jockofuels.com> domain name. Under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), relevant WHOIS information, among other evidence, may demonstrate that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. See Chevron Intellectual Property LLC v. Fred Wallace, FA 1626022 (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). In this case the identity of the Respondent does not reflect that Respondent is commonly known by the domain name). Complainant has not given authorization to use the JOCKO and JOCKO FUEL mark or to register any domain name containing the JOCKO marks. See Emerson Electric Co. v. golden humble / golden globals, FA 1787128 (Forum June 11, 2018) ("lack of evidence in the record to indicate a respondent is authorized to use [the] complainant's mark may support a finding that [the] respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)"). This Panel also points out that Respondent is not using the domain name in connection with a legitimate noncommercial use or fair use under Policy 4(c)(iii). According to the evidence provided by Complainant (Exhibit B and C), Respondent's use of the disputed domain name is done to deceive consumers by copying genuine website, assets, images, and products without authorization. Complainant has also submitted evidence (Exhibit C) to prove that Respondent is sending e-mails to possible consumers and it includes an email address intending to mimic an authentic Jocko email account. Thus, the use done by Respondent is not a legitimate use since it could lead the consumers into confusion with respect to the origin of the goods involved. In addition, the disputed domain name <jockofuels.com> includes a misspelling of Complainant's marks adding an "s" at the end. Prior Panels have considered that this typosquatting is evidence of a Respondent's lack of rights and legitimate interests. See Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. v. John Mc Lean Bilog, FA 2095217 (Forum May 30, 2024) ("Next, by dropping the final "m" off the end of the common ".com" top-level domain, Respondent is engaging in typosquatting, which is the intentional misspelling of a protected trademark to take advantage of typing errors made by Internet users seeking the web sites of the owners of the mark. It is true that the letter "m" is not dropped from Complainant's registered mark in this case, but UDRP panels have held that dropping the "m" from the expected gTLD ".com" still qualifies as typosquatting."). See also Teavana Corp v. Lee Sam Lee Sam, FA 1419368 (Forum Feb. 22, 2012) (finding that removing the letter "m" from the ".com" suffix is evidence of a respondent's lack of rights and legitimate interests as it constitutes typosquatting); AccountNow, Inc. v. ME New Enterprise, FA 1417493 (Forum Jan. 17, 2012) (finding that Respondent did not have rights and legitimate interests in the domain name where Respondent was capitalizing on the misspelling of ".com."). Therefore, the Panel agrees that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and does not have legitimate interest under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Registration and Use in Bad Faith This Panel finds that Complainants have registered and used the JOCKO and JOCKO FUELS mark for some years along with the domain name <jockofuel.com>, and that this occurred before the date on which the disputed domain name was registered (August 2024). The registration of the domain name reveals bad faith since it is almost identical to the Complainant's trademarks and domain name. In addition, the use on the domain name website, according to the evidence submitted by Complainant (Annex B), shows bad faith since they include the Complainant's mark JOCKO FUEL and products. See Guess? IP Holding L.P. and Guess?, Inc. v. Linan / linanbangongshi and hu sugor / sugorguoguo, FA 1587466 (Forum Dec. 13, 2014) ("The Panel finds that Respondent's use of the disputed domain names to compete with Complainant by offering counterfeit products and thereby misdirecting Internet users constitutes disruption to Complainant's business which demonstrates bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)."); see also H-D Michigan, LLC v. Ross, FA 1250712 (Forum Apr. 23, 2009) (determining that the respondent's selling of counterfeit products creates the likelihood of confusion as to the complainant's affiliation with the disputed domain name and allows the respondent to profit from that confusion and thus demonstrates bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)). The www.jockofuels.com website is used to lead the consumers into confusion and for phishing customers to provide personal information. (Exhibit B). The website mimics the Complainant's website. The Panel finds that Respondent uses the domain name to attract, for commercial gain, users to its own website, which is evidence of bad faith registration and use. The Panel determines that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in 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 <jockofuels.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Héctor Ariel Manoff, Panelist Dated: October 8, 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.