The Complainant is 3 Day Blinds Corporation of Irvine, California, United States of America ("US"), represented by Friedman Stroffe & Gerard, PC, US.
The Respondent is Domain Administrator, Fundacion Private Whois, Attn: of Panama. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with I Corp. (the "Registrar"). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on May 5, 2014. On May 6, 2014, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On May 7, 2014, the Registrar 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 May 12, 2014. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was June 1, 2014. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on June 2, 2014.
The Center appointed Alvaro Loureiro Oliveira as the sole panelist in this matter on June 11, 2014. 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, 3 Day Blinds Corporation, is a company based in California, US, and uses the 3 DAY BLINDS trademark to identify products and services related to interior and exterior blinds, shades, shutters, curtains and drapes, particularly online.
The Complainant owns trademark registrations in the trademark 3 DAY BLINDS in the US, used to identify products and services related to interior and exterior decorating, including:
- US Trademark Registration No. 1,497,759, registered July 26, 1988; for use in International Class 20;
- US Trademark Registration No. 3,846,927, registered September 14, 2010, for use in International Classes 6, 19, 20, 24, 35, 37, 40 and 42; and
- US Trademark Registration No. 3,925,942, registered March 1, 2011, for use in International Classes 20 and 35.
The disputed domain name was registered in 2004.
The trademark 3 DAY BLINDS has acquired fame and celebrity, symbolizing the goodwill that Complainant has created in its trademark. Evidence of such reputation was duly presented by the Complainant.
The disputed domain name is virtually identical to the one registered and used by the Complainant to identify their business, as the sole difference between them is the way the number "3" is written: while it appears as a numeral in the Complainant's domain name the number is spelled out in the disputed domain name. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name bears the famous trademark 3 DAY BLINDS, with only a difference regarding the way the number 3 appears, as it is indicated as a numeral in the trademark 3 DAY BLINDS and written in the disputed domain name as "three", in a clear attempt to create confusion and mislead the consumers.
The Complainant claims not to have any relationship with the Respondent or has never given the Respondent permission to use its trademark or to apply it to any kind of domain name incorporating the 3 DAY BLINDS trademark.
The Complainant also states that the Respondent is not making a legitimate use of the disputed domain name. On the contrary, the Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is being used to offer information on competing brands and the sale of competing products that are similar to those offered by the Complaint. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings In this Panel's view, the Complainant has satisfied the requirements specified under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy:
(i) that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in respect of which the Complainant has rights; and
(ii) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
(iii) that the disputed domain name has been registered and used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Regarding the first of the elements, the Panel understands that the Complainant's evidence suffices to prove its rights in the 3 DAY BLINDS trademark, which is duly registered in the US and consequently used extensively and regularly in that country.
Further, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name indeed reproduces the Complainant's trademark, and furthermore, the substitution of the numeral 3 for its written representation intentionally leads to confusion amongst consumers.
Hence, the Panel finds that the first of the elements is satisfied in this dispute. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Panel understands that the trademark 3 DAY BLINDS is undoubtedly linked to the Complainant, since it is not only registered as a trademark in the Complainant's name, but also is used for to identify the Complainant's online business.
Complainant has made out a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not rebutted the Complainant's contentions.
Moreover, the Complainant provided enough evidence of the notoriety of the Complainant's trademark in the US. Hence, the Panel considers that the Respondent should have been aware of the Complainant's trademark and its direct relation to the Complainant.
The Complainant has also shown that the Respondent is not making any direct use of the disputed domain name, but merely using it as a parking page for sponsored listings – listings of competing products that are related to the core business of the Complainant.
Thus, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Complainant contends that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith, under paragraph 4(b) of the Policy.
The Complainant's trademark 3 DAY BLINDS is recognized as being well known in the respective market. In this Panel's view, the Respondent was aware of the Complainant's rights in this trademark at the time the disputed domain name was registered. These facts indicate that such registration was made in bad faith.
With regards to the use of the disputed domain name in bad faith, based on the evidence presented by the Complainant, the Panel finds that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name with the intention of attracting, for commercial gain, internet users to the disputed domain name by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trademark, and of disrupting the business of the Complainant.
The Panel finds that the third element of the Policy is satisfied. 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.
Alvaro Loureiro Oliveira
Sole Panelist
Date: July 1, 2014
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy