The Complainant is AlliedBarton Security Services LLC of King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, United States of America (“USA”), represented by Cozen O'Connor, USA.
The Respondent is George Washere of Panama City, Panamá. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with eNom (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 5, 2013. On June 6, 2013, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On June 7, 2013, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on June 11, 2013 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on June 14, 2013.
The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended 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 June 17, 2013. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was July 7, 2013. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on July 8, 2013.
The Center appointed Hariram Jayaram as the sole panelist in this matter on July 11, 2013. 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 Complainant is an American-owned security officer service company established in 1957. The Complainant owns a family of registered ALLIEDBARTON trademarks. The Complainant has registered the following trademarks in the United States:
- Trade Mark Registration No. 3,144,421 ALLIEDBARTON, registered in Class 45 on September 19 2006
- Trade Mark Registration No. 3,152, 959 ALLIEDBARTON SECURITY SERVICES, registered in Class 45 on October 10, 2006
- Trade Mark Registration No. 3,223,891 ALLIEDBARTON SECURITY SERVICES & Design registered in Class 45 on April 3, 2007, with a first use in commerce on September 4, 2004
- Trade Mark Registration No. 3,144,420 ALLIEDBARTON & Design, registered in Class 45 on September 19, 2006
The Complainant has also registered the domain name incorporating the word “AlliedBarton”. The domain name was registered in favour of the Complainant on December 13, 2004.
The disputed domain name was registered on March 4, 2013. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant is one of the largest American-owned security officer services company established in 1957. One of the main components of the Complainant’s business includes the provision of security services in connection with its family of ALLIEDBARTON marks. The Complainant’s well-known family of ALLIEDBARTON® marks, has achieved significant recognition in the marketplace in connection with the Complainant’s services. The disputed domain name incorporates the federally registered ALLIEDBARTON marks in a manner that is confusingly similar to trade marks in which the Complainant has established rights.
The Complainant further owns and operates the website located at “www.”, which is Complainant’s main corporate website, which was registered in favour of the Complainant on December 13, 2004, and which offers information about the Complainant’s various security related services.
While the Complainant has gained trade mark rights in common law and other rights in its family of ALLIEDBARTON marks, through their use, advertising and promotion, the Complainant has also protected its family of ALLIEDBARTON marks by filing for and obtaining trade mark registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”). The Complainant used its family of ALLIEDBARTON marks in commerce since 2004, and obtained the above-referenced trade mark registrations long before the Respondent registered the disputed domain name on March 4, 2013. Given the Complainant’s extensive and exclusive rights in its family of ALLIEDBARTON marks, there can be little question that the Respondent purchased the disputed domain name with full knowledge of and the intent to trade off the Complainant’s pre-existing rights. The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s federally-registered ALLIED BARTON marks, displaying all but one of the identical characters in the exact same chronological order. The Complainant clearly has rights in the ALLIED BARTON marks, which are incorporated into the disputed domain name.
The Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainant and there is no evidence to suggest that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name to advance legitimate interest for the bona fide offering of goods or services. The Respondent has anonymously registered the disputed domain name in an effort to evade the consequences of registering a domain name for which he/she has no rights or legitimate interests. The Respondent has not provided any contact information whatsoever on the website located at the domain name and the Respondent (as an individual, business, or other organization) cannot claim to have been commonly known by the disputed domain name or similar name related thereto. The Respondent has made no effort to associate himself or herself with the domain name.
The Respondent has used the disputed domain name in connection with a commercial link service, known as a “link farm,” which is not a bona fide offering of goods or services capable of giving rise to a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. The use of the disputed domain name in connection with a commercial link service, designed to lure Internet users and divert them to other commercial sites by the use of domain name identical or similar to a complainant’s trade mark, do not confer a right to or legitimate interest in a domain name.
The Respondent’s adoption and use of the disputed domain name is in bad faith, has continued with full knowledge of the Complainant’s prior rights given the affirmative notice provided by the Complainant, and is willful infringement of the Complainant’s prior rights. The Respondent has attempted to take commercial advantage of the Complainant’s trademarks and commercial reputation and trade off the Complainant’s goodwill.
An Internet user that seeks the Complainant’s products or services, and who types in any of the disputed domain name that are registered in favour of the Respondent, is directed to a website that lacks significant independent content of its own, but rather use the disputed domain name in connection with links to third-party commercial sites including links to companies that provide similar services to those offered by the Complainant under its ALLIEDBARTON marks. The Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name is likely to give rise to confusion as to an association, affiliation, or sponsorship between the Complainant and the Respondent.
On April 10, 2013, the Complainant sent the Respondent a letter in which it notified the Respondent of the Complainant’s rights in and to the ALLIEDBARTON marks and requested that the Respondent transfers the disputed domain name to the Complainant. On May 14, 2013, the Complainant sent the Respondent a follow up letter once again notifying the Respondent of the Complainant’s rights and requesting that the Respondent transfers the disputed domain name to the Complainant. The Respondent has ignored the Complainant’s April 10, 2013 and May 14, 2013 correspondences. The Respondent is intentionally attempting to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent’s website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademarks.
Moreover, with the registration information recently provided by the Center, it now appears that the Respondent is the same respondent that was recently ordered by the Center to transfer the domain names , , and to the Complainant (see AlliedBarton Security Services LLC v. ICS Inc., WIPO Case No. D2012-0411; AlliedBarton Security Services LLC v. Registrant: ICS INC.WIPO Case No. D2012-1003, AlliedBarton Security Services LLC v. Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 0132268359 / ICS Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2012-2361. Although the Respondent in the said recent UDRP proceedings used the company name ICS, Inc., the contact e-mail for ICS, Inc. included the words "georgewashere", which is identical to the Respondent’s name in this case, George Washere. The Respondent is a serial cyber-pirate and typosquatter who has intentionally registered several domain names confusingly similar to the Complainant’s ALLIEDBARTON marks, including the domain name, in an attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent's websites by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's ALLIEDBARTON marks. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires the Complainant to prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be transferred:
i. the domain name registered by the respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;
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. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant is the registered owner of a family of ALLIEDBARTON trademarks. The said trademarks have been used by the Complainant in connection with its business of providing security services. The disputed domain name is . The only difference between the Complainant’s ALLIEDBARTON trade mark and the disputed domain name is the exchange of the alphabets “d” and “e” in the word “allied” in the Complainant’s mark. Such slight alphabetical variation and small difference are insufficient to distinguish the disputed domain name from the Complainant’s trademarks. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks.
In DaimlerChrysler Corporation v. Worshiping, Chrisler, and Chr, aka Dream Media and aka Peter Conover,WIPO Case No. D2000-1272, the disputed domain names were , , and and the Complainant’s trade mark was CHRYSLER. The Panel noted as follows:
“The domain names are slight misspellings of the "CHRYSLER" mark. The only distinction between the domain names and the Complainant’s mark is, in most cases, a single change in a letter in the middle of the word that constitutes the mark. The domain names, which are otherwise identical to the Complainant’s mark, either (1) substitute an "i" for the letter "y" in the mark (""); (2) omit an "h" as the second letter of the mark (""); (3) add a "t" as the sixth letter of the mark (""); or (4) add a "t" and substitute an "i" for the letter "y" in the mark (""). Given the evidence provided, this Panel finds that Respondent’s domain names, while not identical, are without doubt confusingly similar to Complaint’s mark.”
This Panel agrees with the observation made in the above decision and finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant has alleged that the Respondent is not affiliated to the Complainant; it is not commonly known by the disputed domain name or a related similar name; it has anonymously registered the dispute domain name with the intention to evade the repercussions of the registration; it is not using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; and that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name to mislead Internet users to commercial websites.
There is no evidence to show that the Respondent has any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not filed a Response to the Complaint and has not made any assertion of its rights to or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. In fact, prior to the commencement of the current proceedings, the Complainant had made attempts to contact the Respondent through correspondence to seek a settlement and provide notice of the Complainant’s rights in the said trademarks. The Respondent remained silent and did not respond to the said correspondences. Evidence provided by the Complainant shows that the nature of the website associated with the disputed domain name is not one which may be inferred as a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name.
On the basis of the Complainant’s submissions and evidence at hand, the use of disputed domain name which consists of only a minor spelling variation from the Complainant’s trademarks, and the apparent purposeful use of the disputed domain name in connection with a commercial link service, the Panel finds that the Respondent is not making use of the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods and services, and is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name.
In MBI, Inc. v. Moniker Privacy Services/Nevis Domains LLC.WIPO Case No. D2006-0550, the panel held as follows:
“Use of the domain name in connection with such a commercial link service is not a bona fide offering of goods or services capable of giving rise to a right or legitimate interest in the domain name.”
The Panel therefore agrees with the observations made in the above decision and finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Complainant has alleged that the Respondent has taken unfair advantage of the Complainant’s rights by registering a domain name similar to that of the Complainant’s trademarks and is intentionally attempting to redirect Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s trade mark. The disputed domain name which is a misspelling of the Complainant’s trademarks resolves to a website which features links to various commercial websites including those related to the services provided by the Complainant. The said website appears to serve no other purpose other than to divert the Internet users who have mistakenly or inadvertently typed incorrectly spelled version of the Complainant's trade mark in an attempt to access the Complainant’s legitimate website.
The Respondent has not disputed these allegations. The Panel is aware of no contrary evidence and finds that such use of the disputed domain name and the registration of the disputed domain name show that the Respondent is well aware of the business of the Complainant and that the disputed domain name has been created with the intention to reap commercial benefit generated through confusion and customer diversion.
In Go Daddy Software, Inc. v. Daniel Hadani, WIPO Case No. D2002-0568, the disputed domain names were , and and the Complainant’s trade mark was GO DADDY. The Panel held:
“Typosquatting is virtually per se registration and use in bad faith. It is difficult to conceive of circumstances that would overcome the inference that the typosquatter "intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [Respondent's] web site . . . by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source" of the web site. Here, such conduct was undertaken to send Complainant's customers to a site that promoted directly competing services.”
The Panel considers further that the failure of the Respondent to respond to the notice given by the Complainant is also evidence that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
The Complainant has also made an inference between the Respondent and other related UDRP proceedings i.e. AlliedBarton Security Services LLC v. ICS Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2012-0411; AlliedBarton Security Services LLC v. ICS Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2012-1003; and AlliedBarton Security Services LLC v. Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 0132268359 / ICS Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2012-2361 and has submitted that the respondent in the said disputes, ICS, Inc., provided contact e-mail which included the words "georgewashere", identical to the name of the Respondent in this case i.e. George Washere.
As the allegations of the Complainant have not been challenged by the Respondent, this Panel agrees with the observations made in the above decisions. The Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. 7. Decision
For 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.
Hariram Jayaram
Sole Panelist
Date: July 25, 2013
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy