Complainant is Manheim, Inc. of Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America (“USA”), represented by Kilpatrick Stockton, LLP, USA.
Respondent is Triton Logic LLC of Lebanon, Missouri, USA. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Wild West Domains, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 11, 2014. On September 12, 2014, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On September 15, 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on September 24, 2014. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was October 14, 2014. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on October 15, 2014.
The Center appointed Martin Schwimmer as the sole panelist in this matter on October 21, 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
Complainant owns, inter alia, US registrations for MANHEIM per se and six registrations for MANHEIM-variant marks, plus an additional 80 registrations that it characterizes as “marks consisting of MANHEIM together with a geographic designation and design element”, such as registration no. 3502675 for M MANHEIM ATLANTA and design (collectively, the “Manheim Marks”). These registrations are in connection with a wide range of services targeted at the automotive industry, including auto auctioning services and auto transport.
Complainant provides a range of services targeted at the automotive industry, including auto transport, under the MANHEIM Marks.
Respondent has utilized the disputed domain name to promote, at times, auto transport services, and web design services targeted at the auto transport industry. The name currently resolves to a registrar parking page. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
Complainant alleges ownership of numerous US registrations for MANHEIM and MANHEIM-formative marks. Many of its registrations are incontestable. It alleges use of the MANHEIM Marks at least early as 1969 in connection with wholesale automobile auction services.
Complainant extended use of the MANHEIM Marks “to a wide-variety of automotive-related dealer services, including automotive vehicle transportation and storage, vehicle financing services, automotive detailing, reconditioning, repair and customization, and automotive inspection services.”
Complainant provided a copy of its current homepage from Complainant’s website located at “”, which site promotes a range of services targeted at the auto industry.
Complainant alleges that as a result of its marketing efforts and resulting success, Complainant’s MANHEIM Marks have become extremely well-known, and Complainant has become “the world’s leading provider of automotive vehicle remarketing services.”
Complainant alleges ownership of the trademark READY AUTO TRANSPORT.
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark, as it incorporates the MANHEIM mark in its entirety, with the addition of the term “autotransport” that is descriptive of one of Complainant’s services.
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the disputed domain name because any use Respondent may be making is subsequent to Complainant’s trademark priority.
Respondent utilized the disputed domain name to promote auto transport services utilizing the MANHEIM trademark. After receipt of demand letters from Complainant, Respondent altered the site to promote web design services targeted at auto transport companies. At some later point, Respondent again began promoting auto transport services. Although Complainant has requested transfer of the disputed domain name, Respondent maintains control of the disputed domain name at this point as a registrar parking page. B. Respondent
Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has amply demonstrated it has registered (and common law) trademark rights in the term MANHEIM.
The disputed domain name is composed of the Complainant’s registered trademark MANHEIM and the descriptive term “auto transport”. The Panel finds the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademark.
According to previous UDRP decisions, the “addition of merely generic, descriptive, or geographical wording to a trademark in a domain name would normally be insufficient in itself to avoid a finding of confusing similarity under the first element of the UDRP” (see paragraph 1.9 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition (“WIPO Overview 2.0”)).
The first element of the Policy is satisfied. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Complainant has alleged that Respondent is not authorized by nor in any other way affiliated with Complainant. Complainant put Respondent on notice of Complainant’s rights. The WhoIs indicates that Respondent’s trade name, Triton Logic LLC, provides no basis for asserting legitimate rights in the disputed domain name.
Respondent has not responded to Complaint to assert any rights or legitimate interests. None of the circumstances in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, which sets out how, in particular but without limitation, a respondent can prove its rights or legitimate interests, are present in this case.
Since, as set out above in section 5, Complainant has made out a prima facie case that Respondent has not rebutted, the Panel finds that the second element of the Policy is satisfied. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Complainant has established that Respondent has utilized the disputed domain name to promote auto transport services under Complainant’s MANHEIM trademark. Respondent appears to have reacted to Complainant’s demand letters by at first altering its activities to promoting web design services targeted at Complainant’s competitors, but later resuming the use targeted at Complainant’s customers. Respondent is presently warehousing the name through use of a registrar parking page.
Although the website at the disputed domain name currently is used merely as a parking page, this Panel is satisfied that the Respondent used the disputed domain name to divert Internet traffic to a website unauthorized by Complainant, containing the Complainant's trademark, for the purpose of achieving commercial gain. Such conduct constitutes bad faith registration and use under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. The panel finds both this prior and the present use of the disputed domain name to be in bad faith.
The third element, registration and use in bad faith, 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.
Martin Schwimmer
Sole Panelist
Date: November 6, 2014
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy