WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Weyerhaeuser Company v. D. Skinner
Case No. D2007-1545
1. The Parties
Complainant is Weyerhaeuser Company, of Federal Way, Washington, United States of America.
Respondent is D. Skinner, of Odessa, Florida, United States of America.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Blue Razor Domains through GoD, Inc. GoD, Inc., later confirmed that it was presently the Registrar of the domain name at issue.
3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on October 18, 2007. On October 19, 2007, the Center transmitted by email to Blue Razor Domains a request for registrar verification in connection with the domain name at issue. On October 20, 2007, Blue Razor Domains transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. On October 26, 2007, GoD, Inc. sent an email to the Center, stating that it was currently the registrar of the domain name at issue and that Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. On October 25, 2007, Blue Razor Domains sent an email to the Center, stating that it was not the registrar for the domain name at issue. On November 6, 2007, Complainant submitted an Amended Complaint, substituting GoD, Inc. as the true registrar, and deleting the reference to Blue Razor Domains. Hereinafter the Panel shall refer to the Complaint and the Amended Complaint jointly and severally as the “Complaint.” The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”), 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 the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on October 25, 2007. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was November 14, 2007. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on November 16, 2007.
On November 21, 2007, the Center appointed M. Scott Donahey as the sole panelist in this matter. 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
In 1982, Complainant’s predecessor registered the trademark MICROLLAM in Israel, showing a first use in commerce in 1982. Complaint, Exhibits 3 and 4. Complainant or its predecessor has since registered the trademark at issue in Germany, France, the United Kingdom, Denmark, the United States, Austria, Sweden, Finland, Benelux, Norway, Spain, Taiwan, Switzerland, Australia, Italy, Japan, Republic of Korea, the European Community, New Zealand, and Canada. Complaint, Annex 4. Complainant acquired its predecessor in 1999, including all of its MICROLLAM trademarks. Complaint, Annex 3.
Complainant is one of the largest international forest products companies with annual sales of US$ 21 billion. Complainant’s predecessor and Complainant have continuously used the MICROLLAM mark in commerce in connection with the advertising and sale of structural wood products.
Respondent registered the domain name at issue on October 26, 2003. Respondent is not connected with Complainant in any way. Respondent is using the domain name at issue on a parking site, with links that generate revenue for Respondent when clicked on. The links include links to Complainant’s competitors and to products which directly compete with Complainant’s MICROLLAM trademarked products. The web site includes the listing “THIS WEBSITE AND DOMAIN NAME ARE FOR SALE.” Complaint, Annex 7. On September 14, 2007, Complainant sent Respondent a cease and desist letter, demanding that the domain name be transferred to Complainant. Complaint, Annex 8. Respondent replied by email dated September 14, 2007, claiming that the advertising on the web site was “purely inadvertent accidental” and “I have not, to my recollection, [placed advertising links to competitive companies and products on the web site].” Complaint, Annex 9.
5. Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
Complainant contends that the domain name at issue is confusingly similar to its MICROLLAM trademark, that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name at issue, and that Respondent registered and is using the domain name at issue in bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs the Panel as to the principles the Panel is to use in determining the dispute: “A Panel shall decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.”
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy directs that the complainant must prove each of the following:
1) that the domain name registered by the respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and,
2) that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and,
3) that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The addition of the .com suffix is not considered in determining confusing similarity. CreditManagement Solutions, Inc. v. Collex Resource Management,WIPO Case No. D2000-0029. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the domain name at issue is confusingly similar to Complainant’s MICROLLAM trademark.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The consensus view of WIPO UDRP Panelists concerning the burden of establishing no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name is as follows:
“While the overall burden of proof rests with the complainant, panels have recognized that this could result in the often impossible task of proving a negative, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge of the respondent. Therefore a complainant is required to make out an initial prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests. Once such prima facie case is made, respondent carries the burden of demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to do so, a complainant is deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the UDRP.”
WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Section 2.1.
In the present case Complainant alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name and Respondent has failed to assert any such rights. Accordingly, also noting the use of the disputed domain name to resolve to a parking site with links to Complainant’s competitors, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name at issue.
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Respondent’s use of “www.” as a parking site with links to Complainant’s competitors is more than sufficient evidence of bad faith. Maruti Udyog Ltd. v. ,WIPO Case No. D2003-0073. The use of a domain name to resolve to a parking web site cannot be regarded here as a right or legitimate interest in respect of the domain name. Burberry Limited v. Startelecom, WIPO Case No. D2005-1114. Use of a domain name to resolve to a parking site with links to competitors of complainant is in and of itself bad faith. Zedge Ltd. v. Moniker Privacy Services/Aaron Wilson,WIPO Case No. D2006-1585; TDS Telecommunications Corporation v. Registrant [20758] Nevis Domains and Registrant [117460] Moniker Privacy Services,WIPO Case No. D2006-1620.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent has registered and is using the domain name at issue in bad faith.
7. Decision
For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the domain name, , be transferred to the Complainant.
M. Scott Donahey
Sole Panelist
Dated: November 28, 2007
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy