Complainant is The Coleman Company, Inc. of Wichita, Kansas, the United States of America, represented by Pattishall, McAuliffe, Newbury, Hilliard & Geraldson, the United States of America.
Respondent is Domain Admin, Private Registrations Aktien Gesellschaft of Kingstown, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with Directi Internet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainR (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on October 22, 2010. On October 25, 2010, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On November 10, 2010, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on November 12, 2010. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was December 2, 2010. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on December 3, 2010.
The Center appointed Mark Ming-Jen Yang as the sole panelist in this matter on December 8, 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
Complainant owns more than fifty United States federal trademark registrations for its COLEMAN mark for use in connection with a wide variety of outdoor recreational products (the “COLEMAN Marks”). Among these registrations are the following for camping trailers:
Trademark
Reg. No.
Reg. date
Wares
COLEMAN & Des.
972,133
Nov. 6, 1973
“Camping trailers” in class 12, claiming first use at least as early as September 1968.
COLEMAN
973,159
Nov. 20, 1973
“Camping trailers” in class 12, claiming first use at least as early as September 1968.
COLEMAN & Des.
2,054,207
Apr. 22, 1997
“Camping trailers” in class 12, claiming first use at least as early as July 1993
Complainant has owned the domain names and since 1999.
Respondent acquired the Disputed Domain Name in 2008.
5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
Complainant contends (in accordance with paragraph 4(a) of the Policy) that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar with the COLEMAN Marks in which it has rights; that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name; and that Respondent registered and uses the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith. B. Respondent
Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions and is in default. 6. Discussion and Findings
One fundamental requirement of due process is that a respondent has notice of proceedings that may substantially affect its rights. The Policy, Rules, and Supplemental Rules establish procedures intended to assure that a respondent is given adequate notice of proceedings commenced against it and a reasonable opportunity to respond (see, e.g., Rules, paragraph 2(a)).
In this case, the Panel is satisfied that the Center took all steps reasonably necessary to notify Respondent of the filing of the Complaint and initiation of these proceedings and that the failure of Respondent to furnish a Response to the Complaint is not due to any omission by the Center. There is sufficient evidence in the case file for the Panel to conclude that the Center discharged its obligations under Rules, paragraph 2(a) (see Section 3, Procedural History, supra).
In case of default, under paragraph 14(a) of the Rules, “the Panel shall proceed to a decision on the complaint”, and under paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, “the Panel shall draw such inferences [from the default] as it considers appropriate.” Furthermore, paragraph 15(a) of the Rules provides that “[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.” Since Respondent has not submitted any evidence, the Panel will render its decision on the basis of the uncontroverted evidence supplied by Complainant. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant contends that it has rights in the COLEMAN Marks and that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar thereto.
In particular, Complainant contends the following about itself,
“Coleman is a leading, worldwide outdoor products company. Coleman’s roots date back to the early 1900’s…. Since that time, Coleman has become a leader in the outdoor recreation industry, producing and selling products for all kinds of outdoor activities, such as family and extreme camping, backyard recreation, hiking, and tailgating…. In the 1960’s, Coleman expanded its product line to include various types of camping trailers. The quality and craftsmanship of COLEMAN camping trailers helped propel the brand into the position of North America’s best selling camping trailers, a distinction it has held since 1979. North America’s most popular off road, high side wall and low side wall camping trailers are sold under the COLEMAN Marks. The COLEMAN camping trailer is the #1 folding camping trailer in North America…. Coleman sells more than $500 million worth of outdoor products annually in connection with the COLEMAN Marks, and invests many millions of dollars in advertising and promoting the goods sold under the COLEMAN Marks. As a result of Coleman's long and extensive use of the COLEMAN Marks, as well as the substantial sums Coleman has spent on advertising and promoting the marks, the COLEMAN Marks have become famous and represent a valuable goodwill owned by Coleman….”
The Panel accepts the preceding contentions as uncontroverted, convincing and supported by the evidence, and the Panel concludes that Complainant has rights in the COLEMAN Marks.
Complainant contends that because the Disputed Domain Name wholly incorporates its COLEMAN Marks and adds only the generic components of “travel” and “trailers”, there is confusing similarity.
The Panel accepts the preceding contentions on confusing similarity as uncontroverted, convincing and supported by the evidence, and finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s COLEMAN Marks.
The Panel concludes that Complainant has met the first requirement of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Complainant contends that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. In particular, Complainant contends that,
“Respondent is not affiliated or related to Coleman in any way, or licensed or otherwise authorized to use the COLEMAN Marks in connection with a website or for any other purpose; and that Respondent is not generally known by the Disputed Domain Name, and has not acquired any trademark or service mark rights in that name or mark”.
Respondent has provided no arguments or evidence of rights or legitimate interests to counter Complainant’s preceding contentions. By virtue of the afore described legal rights of Complainant in the COLEMAN Marks (see above Sections 4 and 6.A), Complainant convincingly argues that Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. The Panel, especially in the absence of any response from Respondent, considers that the circumstances described in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, regarding the circumstances in which Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name, likely do not exist.
The Panel concludes that Complainant has met the second requirement of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Complainant contends that Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith.
In particular, Complainant contends that Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith by doing so long after the COLEMAN Marks became famous, with actual and constructive knowledge of its earlier United States trademark registrations and its domain name registrations (see above Section 4) and its long-standing marketplace reputation (see above Section 6.A), with the intention of using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith. Complainant further contends that Respondent has in fact been using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith by using it to redirect Internet users to a monetized parking page that includes links to websites offering services competitive with those offered by Complainant under the COLEMAN Marks and thereby is disrupting Complainant’s business and is attracting, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s website based on a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s COLEMAN Marks, all contrary to paragraphs 4(b)(iii) and 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.
The Panel accepts the preceding contentions as uncontroverted, convincing and supported by the evidence.
The Panel concludes that Complainant has met the third requirement 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 Complainant.
Mark Ming-Jen Yang
Sole Panelist
Dated: December 12, 2010
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy