Complainant is W.W. Grainger, Inc. of Lake Forest, Illinois, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Greenberg Traurig, LLP, United States.
Respondent is Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC of Scottsdale, Arizona, United States / I S, ICS INC, of Grand Cayman, Cayman Islands, Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (“United Kingdom”). 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with GoD, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 29, 2017. On January 3, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On January 4, 2018, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to Complainant on January 5, 2018 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amended Complaint on January 10, 2018.
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 and 4, the Center formally notified Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on January 11, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was January 31, 2018. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on February 1, 2018.
The Center appointed Robert A. Badgley as the sole panelist in this matter on February 8, 2018. 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 has been in business for over 85 years. According to Complainant, it is North America’s leading broad line supplier of maintenance, repair, and operating products. Among Complainant’s products are safety gloves, ladders, motors, and janitorial supplies. Complainant also offers services like inventory management and technical support. Complainant also has operations in Asia, Europe, and Latin America. Grainger operates its primary website at “”.
Complainant owns numerous trademark registrations, many going back for decades, for GRAINGER in connection with its products and services. For example, Complainant owns United States Patent and Trademark (“USPTO”) Reg. No. 1,559,199 (October 3, 1989) for the mark GRAINGER. Complainant also owns USPTO Reg. No. 4,232,412 (October 30, 2012) for the mark GRAINGER ONLINESAFETYMANAGER (and design).
Since 2011, Complainant has operated Grainger Online Safety Manager, an array of online management tools by which companies may manage their safety and risk concerns. Complainant offers its Grainger Online Safety Manager at “”. The Grainger Online Safety Manager prominently displays the GRANGER ONLINE SAFETY MANAGER trademark.
The Domain Name was registered on July 10, 2017. The Domain Name resolves to a website featuring links to commercial websites which feature advertisements for goods and services in direct competition with Complainant. These links include “Workplace Safety”, “OSHA [the United States Occupational Safety and Health Administration] Safety Training”, “Eye Protection Safety”, and “Hard Hat Safety”. The site also indicates that the Domain Name is for sale.
Complainant sent Respondent a cease-and-desist letter dated July 11, 2017. No response to the letter was received by Complainant. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
Complainant contends that it has satisfied all three elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the Domain Name. B. Respondent
Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy lists the three elements which Complainant must satisfy with respect to the Domain Name:
(i) the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
(ii) 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 Panel concludes that Complainant has rights in the mark GRAINGER ONLINESAFETYMANAGER through registration and use. The Domain Name is confusingly similar to this mark. The Domain Name is identical to the mark except it transposes the “e” and the “t” in the word “safety” within the Domain Name. This slight difference does not even remotely diminish the confusing similarity between the mark and the Domain Name, but is in fact a defining feature.
Complainant has established Policy paragraph 4(a)(i). B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Pursuant to paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, Respondent may establish its rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, among other circumstances, by showing any of the following elements:
(i) before any notice to you [Respondent] of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the Domain Name or a name corresponding to the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or
(ii) you [Respondent] (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the Domain Name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
(iii) you [Respondent] are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.
Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests with respect to the Domain Name. Respondent has not come forward, in response to either the cease-and-desist letter or the Complaint, to identify its bona fides, if any, vis-à-vis the Domain Name. From the record discussed above, it is clear that Respondent is simply typo‑squatting and deriving illegitimate revenue from misdirected Internet traffic. This is far from a legitimate interest in the Domain Name.
Complainant has established Policy paragraph 4(a)(ii). C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides that the following circumstances, “in particular but without limitation”, are evidence of the registration and use of the Domain Name in “bad faith”:
(i) circumstances indicating that Respondent has registered or has acquired the Domain Name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the Domain Name registration to Complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of its documented out of pocket costs directly related to the Domain Name; or
(ii) that Respondent has registered the Domain Name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
(iii) that Respondent has registered the Domain Name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) that by using the Domain Name, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on Respondent’s website or location.
The Panel concludes that the Domain Name was registered and has been used in bad faith within the meaning of Policy paragraph 4(b)(iv), quoted above. It is obvious that Respondent had Complainant’s mark in mind when registering the Domain Name. The Domain Name is comprised of the distinctive and well-known mark GRAINGER, plus three other words – with one slight typo – which match the remaining words in Complainant’s GRAINGER ONLINESAFETYMANAGER mark. Respondent’s targeting of Complainant and its marks is also manifest through the hyperlinks – related to workplace safety – featured at Respondent’s website.
The Panel also finds Respondent in bad faith under Policy paragraph 4(b)(ii), quoted above. Specifically, as pointed out in the Complaint, Respondent has been found in bad faith in four prior decisions under the Policy. This supports a finding that Respondent is engaged in a pattern of preclusive registrations, and hence is in bad faith.
Complainant has established Policy paragraph 4(a)(iii). 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 Domain Name be transferred to Complainant.
Robert A. Badgley
Sole Panelist
Date: February 9, 2018
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy