The Complainant is Anderson Power Products, Inc. of Sterling, Massachusetts, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Greenberg Traurig LLP, United States.
The Respondent is Domain Admin, Whois Privacy Corp. of Nassau, Bahamas. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with TLD Registrar Solutions Ltd. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 1, 2016. On December 1, 2016, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On December 5, 2016, 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 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on December 6, 2016. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 26, 2016. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on December 27, 2016.
The Center appointed Mario Soerensen Garcia as the sole panelist in this matter on January 3, 2017. 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 Anderson Power Products, Inc. with its head offices in Massachusetts, United States. It is a global leader in high power interconnect solutions. It started operations in 1877 as the Albert & J.M. Anderson MFG Co. In 1963 it began doing business as Anderson Power Products and has been using its ANDERSON POWER PRODUCTS trademark in connection with electrical connectors, electrical insulators and electrical switches ever since.
Among other registrations for the trademark ANDERSON POWER PRODUCTS, the Complainant is the owner of the United States Trademark Registration No. 2,719,086 for ANDERSON POWER PRODUCTS, granted on May 26, 2003, with a first use date of March 1, 1963, in international class 9, covering electrical switches, electrical connectors and electrical insulators.
The Respondent is Domain Admin, Whois Privacy Corp. of Nassau, Bahamas.
The disputed domain name was registered on February 10, 2005. The disputed domain name resolved to a pay-per-click parking page. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant argues that “it is not necessary that the Complainant have a trademark registration where the respondent is located to demonstrate its rights” and to corroborate its understanding it cites UDRP decision Koninklijke KPN N.V. v. Telepathy Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2001-0217.
It presents Annex 8 showing that it operates the website “” at which it uses its trademark ANDERSON POWER PRODUCTS.
The Complainant claims that the disputed domain name incorporates its trademark ANDERSON POWER PRODUCTS with the addition of the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com”. The Complainant cites UDRP decision Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2001-0903 in which it was decided that the “mere addition of the gTLD “.com”, to a complainant’s mark fails to produce a domain name distinct from the complainant’s mark.”
The Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark and its domain name .
According to the Complainant, no authorization to use the trademark ANDERSON POWER PRODUCTS or to register domain names encompassing it has been granted to the Respondent by the Complainant.
The Complainant alleges that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and that it uses it in bad faith. It argues that WhoIs information identifies the Registrant of the disputed domain as “Domain Admin”, which means that the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain.
It argues that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name to divert Internet traffic to commercial websites which feature advertisements for goods and services related to the Complainant. To validate this statement, the Complainant presents Annex 9, evidencing that the website to which the disputed domain name resolves contains links such as “Anderson Power Products”, “Electronic Connectors”, “Electronics Suppliers”, “Electronic Components”, and “Tyco Electronics Connector”. These links direct Internet users to pages featuring advertisements for goods and services which are in direct competition with Complainant’s.
The Complaint argues that it came across the disputed domain name in 2014 and sent a letter to the Respondent advising it about the Complainant’s rights in the ANDERSON POWER PRODUCTS trademark. The Complainant unsuccessfully tried several times to obtain a response from the Respondent. According to the Complainant, the lack of response from the Respondent to the letter also shows the bad faith in registering and using the disputed domain name.
The Complainant claims that the Respondent is intentionally attempting to attract Internet users to its website for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark.
Finally, the Complainant requests the transfer of the disputed domain name. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
As per paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that:
(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;
(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The evidence presented demonstrates that the Complainant is the owner of the trademark ANDERSON POWER PRODUCTS in the United States for electrical switches, electrical connectors and electrical insulators since 2003, and that it uses this trademark since 1963.
The disputed domain name comprises the Complainant’s entire trademark ANDERSON POWER PRODUCTS with the mere addition of the gTLD “.com”. The addition of the gTLD does not avoid confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademark.
The Panel finds that paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been proved by the Complainant, i.e., the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent has not submitted a response to the Complaint and, in accordance with paragraph 5(f) of the Rules, the Panel shall decide the dispute based upon the Complaint.
The Respondent has no authorization to use the Complainant’s trademark or to register domain names containing the trademark ANDERSON POWER PRODUCTS.
The Respondent is not known by the trademark ANDERSON POWER PRODUCTS.
For the above reasons and based on its findings below, the Panel finds that the condition of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy has been satisfied, i.e., the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The trademark ANDERSON POWER PRODUCTS is registered by the Complainant in the United States for electrical switches, electrical connectors and electrical insulators.
The disputed domain name incorporates the trademark ANDERSON POWER PRODUCTS entirely.
The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in using the trademark ANDERSON POWER PRODUCTS.
The website at the disputed domain name displays products sponsored links related to third parties’ goods of the same type of and that compete directly with the Complainant’s goods identified by the trademark ANDERSON POWER PRODUCTS.
In view of the above reasons, this Panel finds that by using the disputed domain name to resolve to a website displaying sponsored links for goods of the Complainant’s competitors, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark.
This Panel finds that the Respondent’s intention of taking undue advantage of the trademark ANDERSON POWER PRODUCTS as described in paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy has been demonstrated.
For the above reasons, the Panel finds that the condition of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy has been satisfied, i.e., the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. 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.
Mario Soerensen Garcia
Sole Panelist
Date: January 13, 2017
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy