Brooklienen.com

The timeline behind brooklienen.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 Brooklinen, Inc. v. brooklinen Store / BROOKLINEN Claim Number: FA2501002138116 PARTIES Complainant is Brooklinen, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Matthew P. Hintz of Lowenstein Sandler LLP, New Jersey, USA. Respondent is brooklinen Store / BROOKLINEN ("Respondent"), Montana, USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <brooklienen.com>, (the "Domain Name") registered with Tucows Domains 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. Dawn Osborne as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on January 31, 2025; Forum received payment on January 31, 2025. On February 3, 2025, Tucows Domains Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <brooklienen.com> Domain Name is registered with Tucows Domains Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Tucows Domains Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Tucows Domains 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 February 5, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 25, 2025 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@brooklienen.com. Also on February 5, 2025, 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 26, 2025 pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Dawn Osborne 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 The Complainant's contentions can be summarised as follows: The Complainant is the owner of the trade mark BROOKLINEN, registered, inter alia, in the USA for bed linen since 2014. It has owned <brooklinen.com> since 2013. The Domain Name registered in 2024 is confusingly similar to the Complainant's mark, adding an extra letter 'e' and the gTLD .com which is not enough to distinguish the Domain Name from the Complainant's mark. Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name and has not been authorised by the Complainant to use the Complainant's mark. The Respondent, is impersonating the Complainant to sell bed linen and has used the Domain Name for a fraudulent passing off scheme on social media using the Complainant's name spelt correctly and the Complainant's official logo in communications. It also uses the Complainant's mark spelled correctly falsely in its WhoIs details. There is no bona fide offering of goods or services or non commercial legitimate and fair use. Impersonating the Complainant by passing off, confusing Internet users for commercial gain, disrupting the Complainant's business and phishing is bad faith with actual knowledge of the Complainant's rights. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS The Complainant is the owner of the trade mark BROOKLINEN, registered, inter alia, in the USA for bed linen since 2014. It has owned <brooklinen.com> since 2013. The Domain Name registered in 2024 has used the Domain Name for a fraudulent passing off scheme to sell bed linen using the Complainant's name spelt correctly and the Complainant's official logo, constituting phishing, confusing Internet users for commercial gain and disrupting the Complainant's business in full knowledge of the Complainant's rights. 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 Domain Name consists of a misspelling of the Complainant's BROOKLINEN mark (registered, inter alia in the USA for bed linen since 2014), an additional letter 'e' and the gTLD.com. Panels have found that adding one letter to a registered mark does not distinguish a domain name from that mark. See Twitch Interactive, Inc. v Antonio Teggi, FA 1626528 (Forum Aug 3, 2015)(finding that twitcch.tv is confusingly similar to the TWITCH TV trade mark because the domain name consisted of a common misspelling of the mark by merely adding the letter 'c'). Accordingly adding an extra 'e' does not prevent confusing similarity between the Complainant's mark and the Domain Name. The gTLD .com does not serve to distinguish the Domain Name from the Complainant's mark, which is the distinctive component of the Domain Name. See Red Hat Inc v Haecke FA 726010 (Forum July 24, 2006) (concluding that the redhat.org domain name is identical to the complainant's red hat mark because the mere addition of the gTLD was insufficient to differentiate the disputed domain name from the mark). Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar for the purpose of the Policy to a mark in which the Complainant has rights. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant has not authorised the use of its mark. Although BROOKLINEN appears in the WhoIs details, the Domain Name was not registered until 2024 and there is no corroborating evidence to show that the Respondent is commonly known by the Domain Name. see Ripple Labs Inc. v. Jessie McKoy / Ripple Reserve Fund, FA 1790949 (Forum July 9, 2018) (finding that, although the respondent listed itself as "Jessie McKoy / Ripple Reserve Fund" in the WHOIS contact information, it did not provide any affirmative evidence to support this identity; combined with the fact that the complainant claimed it did not authorize the respondent to use the mark, the respondent is not commonly known by the domain name). The use of the Domain Name is commercial and so cannot be legitimate non commercial fair use. The Domain Name has been used in a fraudulent passing off and phishing scheme using the Complainant's mark spelled correctly and the Complainant's official logo. This is deceptive and confusing. As such it cannot amount to the bona fide offering of goods and services or a legitimate non commercial or fair use. See DaVita Inc. v Cynthia Rochelo FA 1738034 (Forum July 20, 2017) (finding that 'Passing off in furtherance of a fraudulent scheme is not considered a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate non commercial or fair use'.) The Domain Name is also intended to be a typosquatting registration differing by one letter from the Complainant's mark and domain name. Typosquatting is also an indication of a lack of rights or a legitimate interests. See Macy's Inc. and its subsidiary Macy's West Stores, Inc. v. chen wenjie c/o Dynadot Privacy, FA1404001552918 (Forum May 21, 2014) ("Respondent's disputed domain names are typosquatted versions of Complainant's registered mark. Typosquatting shows a lack of rights or legitimate interests."). As such the Panelist finds that the Respondent does not have rights or a legitimate interest in the Domain Name and that the Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Impersonating a complainant by use of a complainant's mark in a fraudulent phishing scheme is disruptive and evinces bad faith registration and use. See Microsoft Corporation v Terrence Green/ Whois Agent/Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc., FA 1661030 (Forum Apr 4 2016). Typosquatting is an indication of bad faith per se. See Cost Plus Management Services, Inc. v. xushuaiwei, FA 1800036 (Forum Sep. 7, 2018) ("Typosquatting itself is evidence of relevant bad faith registration and use."). In the opinion of the Panelist, the use made of the Domain Name is confusing and disruptive in that Internet users might reasonably believe that the Respondent's communications are connected to or approved by the Complainant as it offers competing goods to the Complainant under a confusingly similar domain name. The Respondent also uses the Complainant's mark spelled correctly and the Complainant's official logo in communications suggesting a connection to the Complainant the owner of the registered BROOKLINEN mark where no such connection exists. It also falsely uses the Complainant's mark in the WhoIs details for the Domain Name. This use also shows that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant and its business, rights, products and services at the time of registration and is passing off. Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain Internet users to its Internet location by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trade mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement by the Complainant likely to disrupt the business of the Complainant. As such, the Panelist believes that the Complainant has made out its case that the Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith and has satisfied the third limb of the Policy under para 4(b)(iii) and (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 <brooklienen.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Dawn Osborne, Panelist Dated: February 26, 2025 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.