WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION TRS Quality, Inc. v. Private WHOIS N, N Private WHOIS Case No. D2010-0455 1. The Parties
The Complainant is TRS Quality, Inc. of Fort Worth, Texas, United States of America, represented by Haynes and Boone, LLP, United States of America.
The Respondent is Private WHOIS N, N Private WHOIS, Richmond, British Columbia, Canada. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with $$$ Private Label Internet Service Kiosk, Inc. (dba “PLISK.com”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 24, 2010. On March 25, 2010, the Center transmitted by email to PLISK.com. a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On March 26, 2010, PLISK.com 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(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on March 29, 2010. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was April 18, 2010. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on April 22, 2010.
The Center appointed Michael D. Cover as the sole panelist in this matter on May 14, 2010. 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
The Disputed Domain Name was registered on February 13, 2010.
The Complainant is the entity within RadioShack Corporation, a New York Stock Exchange publicly-traded company, that owns and enforces the RADIOSHACK trade mark. RadioShack Corporation is a retailer of technology products, principally in the area of consumer electronics, within the United States and other countries.
RadioShack Corporation sells products through a variety of channels, including its website at “”. It has thousands of company-operated stores and dealer outlets across the United States and Mexico. The RADIOSHACK trade mark has been promoted by advertising and the like since 1923.
The Complainant and its predecessors in interest have obtained numerous trade mark registration covering the RADIOSHACK trade mark throughout the world. These trade marks predate the registration of the Disputed Domain Name by many decades.
Visitors to the website at “www.” were automatically redirected to the Respondent's website at “”, which contains advertisement links for goods that compete with the Complainant's goods. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant submits that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to its well-known and distinctive trade mark RADIOSHACK. It says that the Disputed Domain Name differs from the Complainant's trade mark by only one letter and that the noticeable part of the Disputed Domain Name is identical to the Complainant's trade mark and that the addition of the letter “k” does not distinguish the Disputed Domain Name from the Complainant's trade mark.
It further states that the Respondent's registration of the Disputed Domain Name constitutes typosquatting and it cites Dow Jones & Co v. Powerclick, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2000-1259, December 1, 2000 in that regard.
With regard to the Respondent having no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name, the Complainant submits that the Respondent does not own a trade mark registration for RADIOSHACK or RADIOSHACKK, is not known by either of those names and does not operate any business under either of those names. It is not authorized by the Complainant to use the RADIOSHACK trade mark by the Complainant.
The Complainant further states that the Respondent has never used the Disputed Domain Name for any bona fide non-commercial use. It cites the fact it is well-established that use of a domain name to redirect users to a site with advertising links is not a bona fide offering of goods or services.
On bad faith, the Complainant submits that the registration and use of the Disputed Domain Name is in bad faith because of the redirection already referred to in this decision. It further points to the fame and distinctiveness of the Complainant's trade mark RADIOSHACK, which is a distinctive mark, and states that it is inconceivable that the Respondent was unaware of the Complainant's mark when registering the Disputed Domain Name. It also states that the Respondent's violation of its registration agreement with its Registrar evidences bad faith, in that the Respondent falsely represented that the Disputed Domain Name did not infringe the legal rights of any third party.
The Complainant concludes by submitting that all three elements required under the Policy have been met, namely that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's famous mark RADIOSHACK, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name and that the Respondent has registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith.
The Complainant requests that the Disputed Domain Name is transferred to it. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel accepts that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trade mark RADIOSHACK, being a trade mark in which the Complainant has rights. But for the addition of the one extra letter “k”, the two terms would be identical and it is well established that the addition of small elements such as one letter does not distinguish a domain name from a trade mark in which the complainant has rights. The Complainant has amply demonstrated that it has rights both registered and unregistered in its trade mark, through its extensive portfolio of trade mark registrations and the extensive use of the trade mark over many decades. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Panel also finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. Whilst the list in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy “How to demonstrate your rights to and legitimate interests in the Domain Name in responding to a Complaint” is not exhaustive, it is clear from the submissions and supporting material from the Complainant that there has been no use of the Disputed Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services nor has the Respondent been commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name; far from it, the Disputed Domain Name is almost completely made up of the Complainant's trade mark. Finally, under paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, such use as there has been appears to have been deliberately misleadingly to divert users for commercial gain.
It is clear that the Complainant has not given any authority, licence or permission in respect of the trade mark RADIOSHACK to the Respondent and, accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
This element is often more difficult than the other two. Here the Disputed Domain Name has not only been registered (and many decades after the use of the Complainant's trade mark begun) but it has also been used. The manner in which it has been used falls squarely within paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, in that the Disputed Domain Name has been used to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the website with the advertisement links by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trade mark.
It is extremely unlikely that the Respondent was not aware of the Complainant's trade mark RADIOSHACK when it registered the Disputed Domain Name.
For these reasons, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name has been registered and is being used 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 Disputed Domain Name, be transferred to the Complainant.
Michael D. Cover
Sole Panelist
Dated: May 27, 2010
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy