Fishercontrolvalve.com

The timeline behind fishercontrolvalve.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 Fisher Controls International LLC v. Gino Parker Claim Number: FA2506002162799 PARTIES Complainant is Fisher Controls International LLC ("Complainant"), represented by John Dilger of Emerson Electric Co., Missouri, USA. Respondent is Gino Parker ("Respondent"), Texas, USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <fishercontrolvalve.com> ('the Domain Name'), registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC. 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 June 26, 2025; Forum received payment on June 26, 2025. On June 26, 2025, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <fishercontrolvalve.com> Domain Name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, LLC 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 June 30, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 21, 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@fishercontrolvalve.com. Also on June 30, 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 July 22, 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 mark FISHER registered, inter alia, in the UK for valves since 1965. The Emerson Electric Co. owns the Complainant and owns and uses www.fishercontrolvalves.com to point to a page on www.emerson.com that links to a page offering the Complainant's products. The Domain Name registered in 2019 is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trade mark adding only the generic words 'control valve' which does not prevent such confusing similarity. The Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name and is not authorised by the Complainant. The Domain Name has been used for a web site that does sell the Complainant's goods, but also sells goods that are not related to the Complainant and links to a site selling competing valves. This is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a non commercial or legitimate fair use and the featuring of a disclaimer that it is not affiliated with "Emerson" or "Emerson Control valves" is not sufficient to prevent 'bait and switch'. This is registration and use in bad faith misleading Internet users for commercial gain and disrupting the Complainant's business in full 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 mark FISHER registered, inter alia, in the UK for valves since 1965. Emerson Electric Co. owns the Complainant and owns and uses Fishercontrolvalves.com to point to a page on www.emerson.com that links to a page offering the Complainant's products. The Domain Name registered in 2019 has been used for a web site that does sell the Complainant's goods, but also sells goods that are not related to the Complainant and links to a site selling competing valves. It has a disclaimer that says it is not affiliated with "Emerson" or "Emerson control valves". 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 the Complainant's FISHER mark (which is registered, inter alia, in the UK since 1965), the generic term 'control valve' and the gTLD .com. Previous panels have found confusing similarity when a respondent merely adds generic terms to a Complainant's mark. See PG&E Corp. v Anderson, D2000-1264 (WIPO Nov. 22, 2000) (finding that respondent does not by adding common descriptive or generic terms create new or different marks nor does it alter the underlying mark held by the Complainant). The Panel agrees that the addition of the generic term 'control valve' to the Complainant's mark does not distinguish the Domain Name from the Complainant's registered trade mark for the purposes of the Policy. The gTLD .com does not serve to prevent confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the Complainant's mark. 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 to the Complainant's registered mark. As such the Panel holds that Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been satisfied. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant has not authorised the use of its mark. There is no evidence or reason to suggest the Respondent is commonly known by the Domain Name. See Alaska Air Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines v. Song Bin, FA 1574905 (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 web site attached to the Domain Name headed 'Industrial Surplus Inc.' offers the Complainant's goods, but also goods that are not related to the Complainant, and links to a web site offering competing valves. The Domain Name carries a high risk of affiliation with the Complainant and the site attached to it does not make it clear that there is no commercial connection with the Complainant. There is a disclaimer that the site is not affiliated with "Emerson" which states that the Respondent has no official partership with "Emerson", but makes no mention of the Complainant or FISHER control valves. As such it fails to satisy the Oki Data criterion for legitimate fair use by resellers and does not amount to the bona fide offering of goods and services. Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc, D2001-0903 (WIPO Nov. 6, 2001. Further the Domain Name appears to be a typosquatting registration differing by one letter from a domain name used by the Complainant's parent company www.fishercontrolvalves.com to point to a page that offers the Complainants's products. Typosquatting is an indication of a lack of rights or legitimate interests. See Nat'l Ass'n of Prof'l Baseball Leagues, Inc. v. Zuccarini, D2002-1011 (WIPO Jan. 21, 2003) ("Typosquatting … as a means of redirecting consumers against their will to another site, does not qualify as a bona fide offering of goods or services, whatever may be the goods or services offered at that site."). The Respondent has not answered the Complaint or rebutted the prima facie case evidenced by the Complainant as set out herein. 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 With reference to the finding of typosquatting above, typosquatting is an indication of bad faith per se. See Cost Plus Management Services, Inc. v. xushuaiwei, FA 1800036 (Forum Sept. 7, 2018) ("Typosquatting itself is evidence of relevant bad faith registration and use."). Further, in the opinion of the panelist the use made of the Domain Name in relation to the Respondent's site is confusing and disruptive in that visitors to the site might reasonably believe it is connected to the Complainant as it offers the Complainant's products without making clear that it is not connected to the Complainant. The disclaimer on the site refers to "Emerson" and not the Complainant and does not state the Respondent is not connected or authorised by the manufacturer of FISHER branded products. The Respondent sells the Complainant's products, but also sells products manufactured by other companies and links to a web site offering competing valves. Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain Internet users to his website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trade mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the web site or products sold on it that are not manufactured by the Complainant likely to disrupt the business of the Complainant. (See Microsoft Corporation v. Story Remix / Inofficial, FA 1734934 (Forum July 10, 2017) (finding bad faith registration and use where the respondent was diverting Internet users searching for the complainant to its own website and likely profiting). See also Asbury Auto Group Inc v Tex. Int'l Prop Assocs FA 958542 (Forum May 29, 2007) finding that the respondent's use of the disputed domain name to compete with the complainant's business would likely lead to confusion amongst Internet users as to the sponsorship or affiliation of a competing business and was therefore evidence of bad faith and use). 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 paragraphs 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 <fishercontrolvalve.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Dawn Osborne, Panelist Dated: July 22, 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.