WIPO Domain Name Decision D2019-1081 for safelitekc.com
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Safelite Group, Inc. v. Will Reed Case No. D2019-1081 1. The Parties
Complainant is Safelite Group, Inc., United States of America (“United States”), represented by Ice Miller LLP, United States.
Respondent is Will Reed, United States. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with GoD, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 9, 2019. On May 10, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On May 13, 2019, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details.
The Center verified that the 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 and 4, the Center formally notified Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on May 16, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was June 5, 2019. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on June 6, 2019.
The Center appointed Douglas M. Isenberg as the sole panelist in this matter on June 19, 2019. 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. 4. Factual Background
Complainant states that it provides “glass installation services for automotive vehicles and the sale of automotive vehicle glass installation goods, and retail store services featuring automobile glass products.” Complainant further states that it has used the trademark SAFELITE since at least 1951, and Complainant states that it owns, and provides evidence in support thereof, the following United States trademark registrations, registered between 1999 and 2018, that consist of or contain the mark SAFELITE: 2,242,375; 2,362,327; 2,689,916; 2,512,458; 2,703,017; 4,013,173; 4,182,558; 4,591,390; 5,276,731; and 5,628,444 (the “SAFELITE Trademark”).
Complainant further states, and the Panel’s independent review of the relevant WhoIs record confirms, that Complainant is the registrant of the domain name , which was created on November 17, 1995, and which Complainant uses in connection with the services associated with the SAFELITE Trademark.
The Disputed Domain Name was created on July 17, 2018, and is being used, as described by Complainant and as shown by an animated screenshot submitted with the Complaint, “to redirect and divert Internet users to another website, … to advertise and offer goods and services that are competitive to Complainant, which primarily includes glass installation services for automotive vehicles and the sale of automotive vehicle glass installation goods, and retail store services featuring automobile glass products.” 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
Complainant contends, in relevant part, as follows:
- The Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the SAFELITE Trademark because it “contains the entirety of the unique SAFELITE mark plus the letters ‘KC’… [which] is geographically descriptive and an abbreviation for ‘Kansas City’ – the city where Respondent’s business predominantly operates and has a principal place of business.”
- Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name because, inter alia, “Respondent has not used the Disputed Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use” but instead “has used the Disputed Domain Name to redirect and divert Internet users to another website, … [which] is used to advertise and offer goods and services that are competitive to Complainant, which primarily includes glass installation services for automotive vehicles and the sale of automotive vehicle glass installation goods, and retail store services featuring automobile glass products”; Complainant “has not authorized Respondent to make any use of its trade mark”; and “there is no evidence that Respondent is ‘commonly known’ b