The Complainant is Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. of New Britain, Connecticut, United States of America ("United States"), internally represented.
The Respondent is Calvert Jiam of Shenzhen, Guangdong, China; Shenzhen Heng Dong Shun Electronics Co. Ltd. of Shenzhen, Guangdong, China. 2. The Domain Names and Registrar
The disputed domain names , , , and are registered with GoD, LLC (the "Registrar"). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on September 25, 2017. On September 25, 2017, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On September 26, 2017, 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 proceeding commenced on October 3, 2017. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was October 23, 2017. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on October 25, 2017.
The Center appointed Sebastian M.W. Hughes as the sole panelist in this matter on November 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 A. Complainant
The Complainant is a company incorporated in the State of Connecticut in the United States and is the owner of a large number of registrations in numerous jurisdictions worldwide for the trade marks BLACK & DECKER, CRAFTSMAN, DEWALT and PORTER CABLE ("the Trade Mark(s)"), including trade mark registration number 517,319 in the United States for the Trade Mark BLACK & DECKER, with a registration date of November 8, 1949; trade mark registration number 2,936,154 in the United States for the Trade Mark CRAFTSMAN, with a registration date of March 29,2005; trade mark registration number 621,152 in the United States for the Trade Mark DEWALT, with a registration date of February 14, 1956; and trade mark registration number 2987000 in the United States for the Trade Mark PORTER CABLE, with a registration date of August 23, 2005.
The Complainant has been using the Trade Marks for many years in connection with a wide range of hand tools, power tools and related accessories (including chargers and batteries). B. Respondent
The Respondent is apparently a resident of China. C. The Disputed Domain Name
The disputed domain names were all registered on the same date, October 8, 2016. D. Use of the Disputed Domain Name
The disputed domain names were previously (on June 16, 2017) resolved to websites featuring the Trade Marks and offering for sale unauthorised non-genuine replacement batteries for the Complainant's products. On September 7, 2017, and as at the date of this Decision, the disputed domain names have been resolved to blank web pages which no longer offer for sale non-genuine replacement batteries for the Complainant's products. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the Trade Marks, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names, and the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
The Complainant must prove each of the three elements in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy in order to prevail. A. Respondent Identity
The Complainant names both Calvert Jiam and Shenzhen Heng Dong Shun Electronics Co. Ltd. as Respondents in this case, stating that while Calvert Jiam is the listed registrant the Complainant's communications regarding the disputed domain names all indicated that Shenzhen Heng Dong Shun Electronics Co. Ltd. was the owner and controller of the disputed domain names. For this reason the Panel finds it proper that both Parties be named as Respondent. B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the Trade Marks acquired through use and registration.
Each of the disputed domain names incorporate the entirety of the relevant Trade Mark, with the addition of dictionary words (see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition ("WIPO Overview 3.0"), section 1.7).
The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Trade Mark. C. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of non-exhaustive circumstances any of which is sufficient to demonstrate that a respondent has rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name:
(i) Before any notice to the respondent of the dispute, the respondent's use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain name or a name corresponding to the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or
(ii) The respondent (as an individual, business, or other organization) has been commonly known by the disputed domain name even if the respondent has acquired no trade mark or service mark rights; or
(iii) The respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trade mark or service mark at issue.
The Complainant has not authorised, licensed, or permitted the Respondent to register or use the disputed domain names or to use the Trade Mark. The Panel finds on the record that there is therefore a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names, and the burden is thus on the Respondent to produce evidence to rebut this presumption.
The Respondent has failed to show that it has acquired any trade mark rights in respect of the disputed domain names or that the disputed domain names have been used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. To the contrary, the disputed domain names have previously been used to offer for sale unauthorised non-genuine replacement batteries for the Complainant's products sold under the Trade Marks; and the disputed domain names are presently not resolved to active websites.
There has been no evidence adduced to show that the Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain names.
There has been no evidence adduced to show that the Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain names.
In all the circumstances, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. D. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
In light of the Respondent's prior use of the disputed domain names in the manner highlighted in Section B above, the Panel concludes that bad faith has been made out under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.
Furthermore, the Panel notes that, after the Complainant's representatives sent a letter of demand to the Respondent by email on June 16, 2017, the Respondent has taken down the content of the relevant websites, but has otherwise failed to respond to the Complainant or to take any part in this proceeding. Instead, the Respondent requested the payment of USD 10,000 per domain name for the transfer of the disputed domain names to the Complainant. The Panel considers this is further cogent evidence of bad faith.
For all the foregoing reasons, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain names have been registered and are 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 names , , , and be transferred to the Complainant.
Sebastian M.W. Hughes
Sole Panelist
Dated: November 15, 2017
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy