WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Tractor Supply Co. of Texas, LP and Tractor Supply Company v. ACSCredco Case No. D2010-0745 1. The Parties
Complainants are Tractor Supply Co. of Texas, LP and Tractor Supply Company of Nashville, Tennessee, United States of America, represented by Waller Lansden Dortch & Davis, LLP, United States.
Respondent is ACSCredco of Gibsonville, North Carolina, United States. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with GoD, Inc. 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 7, 2010. On May 10, 2010, the Center transmitted by email to GoD, Inc. a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On May 10, 2010, GoD, Inc. transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. On May 14, 2010, an amendment to the Complainant was received by the Center. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on May 20, 2010. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was June 9, 2010. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on June 10, 2010.
The Center appointed Sandra A. Sellers as the sole panelist in this matter on June 18, 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.
Several submissions were received after the Notification of Respondent Default, and then after appointment of the Panel. On June 10, 2010, Respondent sent an email to the Center as an informal response to the Complaint. On June 21, 2010, Complainant sent an email Reply to Respondent's email of June 10, 2010. On June 23, 2010, Respondent sent an email referencing Complainant's submission of June 21, 2010. Though it is not necessary for the Panel to accept and consider any of these filings, the Panel will accept and consider Respondent's informal response to the Complaint. The Panel will not accept or consider either Complainant's email of June 10, 2010 or Respondent's email of June 23, 2010. 4. Factual Background
Complainant or its predecessors have operated a retail business under the TRACTOR SUPPLY COMPANY service mark since 1938. It has adopted several versions of the service mark, including TRACTOR SUPPLY, TRACTOR SUPPLY CO. AND TSC. Complainant has a federally registered service mark for TRACTOR SUPPLY CO. According to the history set forth in the company profile and a book about the Tractor Supply story, Tractor Supply started as a small replacement parts catalog company and is now a billion-dollar farm and ranch store. Complainant has at least 930 stores in 44 states, including one located less than five miles from Respondent's registered address. Complainant spent over USD 45 million in advertising in 2009 alone.
Complainant has registered , , , and , and conducts online business via its websites.
Complainant sent Respondent a demand letter on April 6, 2010, to which Respondent did not reply.
Respondent registered on March 10, 2010, 70 years after Complainant's first use of TRACTOR SUPPLY, and well after Complainant registered its service marks and domain names. The website is inactive, and is parked with the Registrar, GoD. According to the informal response filed on June 10, 2010, Respondent states:
“The purpose of my purchasing the domain name was to help my father-in law re-sell tractors that he buys and fixes-up and take the proceeds to build handi-cap accessible walkways, ramp, barn, and feeding stations for the goats, rabbits, chickens, and other animals that we have on our farm because my wife and I volunteer to do work with special needs young adults, and my father-in law has helped us out tremendously with clearing land and making preperations [sic] at our farm thus far.” 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant
Complainant contends that Respondent's domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's marks and domain names, which should have been well-known to Respondent at the time of registering the disputed domain name. Further, Complainant alleges that Respondent does not have any right or legitimate interest in the domain name and that it has registered and uses the domain name in bad faith. B. Respondent
Respondent did not formally reply to the Complainant's contentions. Even in the informal response filed on June 10, 2010, Respondent does not dispute Complainant's contentions, rather Respondent simply attempts to explain and justify his purchasing of the domain name. 6. Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the UDRP provides that in order to divest a respondent of a disputed domain name, a complainant must demonstrate each of the following:
(i) the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and
(ii) the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(iii) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
Under paragraph 15(a) of the Rules,
“A Panel shall 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.” A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has used the mark TRACTOR SUPPLY since 1938 to sell goods that could be used on farms, among other things. It holds federal registrations for various marks incorporating TRACTOR SUPPLY. The ownership of federally-registered marks is prima facie evidence that the Complainant has exclusive rights to the marks. Also, Complainant has common law rights in the marks based on over 70 years of the TRACTOR SUPPLY marks. Panels have consistently held that common law rights are appropriate for protection under the Policy. Complainant therefore has shown that it has rights to use the TRACTOR SUPPLY marks.
Respondent uses TRACTOR SUPPLY in its entirety in the disputed domain name, adding only the extension “.mobi.”. It is immaterial that the disputed domain name ends in a different generic top-level domain extension, because the root “tractor supply” is identical. See, e.g., Sanofi-Aventis v. Smith, WIPO Case No. D2005-0605.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant's registered mark, and that Complainant meets the first criterion of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Respondent is not affiliated with or related to Complainant, nor is Respondent licensed or authorized to use the TRACTOR SUPPLY service mark or trade name. On the evidence before the Panel, Respondent does not appear to make any legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name. The Panel is satisfied that Complainant has made a prima facie showing of Respondent's lack of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Respondent has not provided any evidence in his own favor.
The Panel finds that Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name and that Complainant meets the second criterion of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used In Bad Faith
Complainant's TRACTOR SUPPLY federally-registered and common law marks are widely known among consumers who purchase farm supplies. The marks have been in use for more than 70 years, and Complainant has spent millions of dollars annually in advertising. Forbes magazine, a widely-read business publication, has recognized Complainant as one of the most well-run companies.
Complainant has at least 930 stores in 44 states. Particularly noteworthy, one of Complainant's TRACTOR SUPPLY stores is located less than five miles from Respondent's address.
Based on these facts, it can be strongly inferred that Respondent would have been aware of the TRACTOR SUPPLY marks prior to registering the disputed domain name.
Respondent does not conduct any legitimate commercial or noncommercial business activity using the disputed domain name. According to the informal response filed on June 10, 2010, Respondent states:
“The purpose of my purchasing the domain name was to help my father-in law re-sell tractors that he buys and fixes-up and take the proceeds to build handi-cap accessible walkways, ramp, barn, and feeding stations for the goats, rabbits, chickens, and other animals that we have on our farm because my wife and I volunteer to do work with special needs young adults, and my father-in law has helped us out tremendously with clearing land and making preperations [sic] at our farm thus far.”
Accordingly, even if Respondent were to use the website, it would be “... to... re-sell tractors...” Clearly, this is for commercial gain. It does not matter for what purpose the Respondent might use those proceeds. Respondent therefore has violated paragraph (4)(b)(iv).
This Panel finds that Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith, within the meaning of paragraph 4(b) of the Policy and that Complainant meets the third criterion of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. 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.
Sandra A. Sellers
Sole Panelist
Dated: July 2, 2010
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy