Complainant is Apple, Inc. of California, United States of America (“US”), represented by Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, US.
Respondents are WhoIs Privacy Services Pty Ltd. of Australia / Stanley Pace of Flower Mound, Texas, US / Shahamat of Kandahar, Afghanistan / Kent Mansley of Riverside, California, US / Phoebe Aoe of Provo, Utah, US / Tammy Caffey of Orange, Texas, US / Staci Michele of Harlingen, Texas, US / Layne Fletcher of Provo, Utah, US / Hiroko Tadano of New York City, New York, US / Keith Besterson of Denver, Colorado, US / Andrew Devon of West Covina, California, US. 2. The Domain Names and Registrars
The disputed domain names , , , , , , , , , , , , and are registered with F (the “First Registrar”).
The disputed domain names , and are registered with GoD, LLC (the “Second Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 19, 2013. On July 19, 2013, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrars a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names.
On July 22, 2013, the First Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain names , , , , , , , , , , , , and which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. In this regard, on August 5, 2013, the Center requested the First Registrar to confirm whether any change in registrant information for the disputed domain names , , and had taken place after the filing of the Complaint. On August 6, 2013, the First Registrar indicated the time such changes took place. On August 6, 2013, the Center sent an email communication to Complainant providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the First Registrar, and requesting Complainant either to file a separate Complaint(s) for the disputed domain name(s), and file a short amendment to drop said separately-filed domain name(s) from the current Complaint, or to provide the Center with a brief amendment to the Complaint (amended Complaint), adding the names of the First Registrar-disclosed registrants as formal Respondents and demonstrating that registrants are, in fact, the same entity. Complainant followed the second option and filed an amended Complaint on August 11, 2013.
On July 22, 2013, the Second Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that Respondent, namely Stanley Pace, is listed as the registrant of the disputed domain names , and and providing the contact details.
The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).
In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified Respondents of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on August 16, 2013. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was September 5, 2013. No Respondent submitted a timely response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondents’ defaults on September 6, 2013.
The Center appointed Michael A. Albert as the sole panelist in this matter on September 12, 2013. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7.
On September 20, 2013, Respondent Stanley Pace informally requested to stay the proceedings and objected to the consolidation of multiple parties. On September 21, 2013, Complainant objected to the Respondent’s request. As Respondent’s communication was not timely, the request was not granted by the Panel. Additionally, Respondent Layne Fletcher submitted a Response on September 20, 2013. As this Response was also not timely, it was not considered by the Panel. 4. Factual Background
Complainant designs and sells a variety of products including personal computers, mobile communication devices, and portable media players. Through commercial success and aggressive marketing, Complainant’s APPLE brand has become one of the most recognizable and valuable brands in the world. Complainant owns trademark rights in the mark APPLE, with registrations dating back to US Registration No. 1,078,312 with a filing date of March 25, 1977. Prior WIPO UDRP decisions have recognized Complainant’s rights in the APPLE mark under the Policy. See, e.g., Apple Inc. v. Algernon Salois,WIPO Case No. D2011-0413 (“[the] APPLE mark is indeed a famous and well-known trademark… in which the Complainant has rights.”); Apple Computer, Inc. v. Omar Acosta Rivera,WIPO Case No. D2006-1118 (“the trademark Apple is a famous trademark worldwide”).
Complainant has additionally cultivated extensive brand recognition of its trademarked terms IPOD (US Registration No. 2,835,698 with filing date of October 18, 2001), IPAD (US Registration No. 3,776,575 with filing date of March 7, 2003) and IPHONE (US Registration No. 3,669,402 with filing date of September 26, 2006). Complainant has used the mark IPOD extensively since it released the IPOD portable electronic media player in October 2001. It has used the mark IPHONE extensively since it released a handheld communication device in January 2007.
On October 24, 2012, WhoIs listed Respondent Stanley Pace as the registered holder for ten of the disputed domain names (masked behind a privacy service at the time of the filing of the Complaint, namely July 19, 2013 (Exhibit 1 to the Complaint)). No information is provided with respect to the registrant information for the remaining seven disputed domain names (Exhibit 1 to the Complaint). A table providing relevant WhoIs registrant contact information is provided as Exhibit A to this Decision.
At the time that Complainant filed its initial Complaint on July 19, 2013, WhoIs listed Respondent Stanley Pace as the registered domain holder for the following seven disputed domain names: , , , , , and . The remaining disputed domain names used a privacy service to conceal the identity of the domain holder.
The websites associated with the disputed domain names previously displayed a list of pay-per-click links automatically generated by a third party (Annex Q to the Complaint). At the time of the Decision, the disputed domain names displayed a landing page automatically generated by Sedo Holding Group’s domain parking service.
According to the First Registrar, on July 21, 2013 Pacific Standard Time, after Complainant’s initial Complaint was filed but before the First Registrar placed a lock on the disputed domain names, Respondent Stanley Pace transferred three disputed domain names , and to Respondent Tammy Caffey. Additionally, on the same date, Respondent Stanley Pace transferred the disputed domain name to Respondent Phoebe Aoe.
The First Registrar identified the registrants masked by the privacy service on July 22, 2013. Respondent Shahamat was the listed registrant for the disputed domain names , , and . Respondent Keith Besterson was the listed registrant for the disputed domain names and . Respondent Layne Fletcher was the listed registrant for the disputed domain name . Respondent Hiroko Tadano was the listed registrant for the disputed domain name . Respondent Andrew Devon was the listed registrant for the disputed domain name . Respondent Kent Mansley was the listed registrant for the disputed domain name .
According to the information provided by the mail courier all Respondents, except Respondent Andrew Devon, provided nonexistent street addresses as registrant information. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
Complainant contends that Stanley Pace remains in control of all seventeen disputed domain names, and thus this Panel may exercise its discretion under paragraph 10(e) of the Rules to consolidate multiple domain name disputes under a single proceeding. Complainant asserts that Respondents Tammy Caffey, Shahamat, Keith Besterson, Staci Michele, Layne Fletcher, Hiroko Tadano, Andrew Devon, Kent Mansley and Phoebe Aoe are all alter egos of Respondent Stanley Pace.
Complainant characterizes Respondent Stanley Pace as a “well-known cybersquatter engaged in a pattern of registering and using in bad faith domain names based on the names and marks of others.” Complainant notes that several prior panels have held that Stanley Pace acted in bad faith under the Policy. See, e.g., Shandong Lingong Construction Machinery Co., Ltd. v. Stanley Pace and Whois Privacy Services Pty Ltd.,WIPO Case No. D2012-1626; Mahindra & Mahindra Limited. v. Stanley Pace,WIPO Case No. 2011-2189.
Complainant asserts that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s APPLE, IPHONE, IPAD and IPOD marks. According to Complainant, many of the disputed domain names are characteristic of “typosquatting,” in which Respondent has relied on potential letter deletions, letter inversions, or common misspellings to “parasitically usurp traffic intended for Complainant’s websites.” Complainant further contends that the remaining disputed domain names are characteristic of “cybersquatting,” in which generic or descriptive terms are appended to Complainant’s marks.
Complainant contends that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. Complainant contends that Respondent is not using the disputed domain names in connection with any bona fide offering of goods or services.
Complainant asserts that Respondent Stanley Pace registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith. Complainant alleges that Respondent Stanley Pace acquired the disputed domain names, after Complainant’s marks became well known, in order to create the impression of an association with Complainant. B. Respondent
No Respondent filed any timely response to the Complaint. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Preliminary Procedural Issues Untimely Responses
Respondent Layne Fletcher purported to submit a Response to the Center on September 20, 2013. This Panel will not consider the untimely Response.
Although Respondent Stanley Pace did not formally respond to the Complaint, he did (belatedly) contact the Center on September 20, 2013, asking for a “temporary stay in the dispute in order to engage in settlement negotiations with the Complainant” and stating that Complainant had indicated interest in an amicable settlement and that he was “willing to comply” but needed time “to get the other Respondents to agree.” Respondent Stanley Pace asked in the alternative to be “excused from this dispute” on the grounds that there are too many respondents, contrary to the Policy, and that he would “rather release domain names
