The Complainant is Artemis Marketing Corp. of Seffner, Florida, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Bryan Cave, LLP, United States.
The Respondent is Domain Admin, Whois Privacy Corp. of Nassau, New Providence, Bahamas / Maddisyn Fernandes, Fernandes Privacy Holdings of La Paz, Plurinational State of Bolivia. 2. The Domain Names and Registrars
The disputed domain names , and are registered with Internet Domain Service BS Corp. The disputed domain names and are registered with TLD Registrar Solutions Ltd. (together referred to as the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 13, 2018. On February 15, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On February 19, 2018, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain names which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on February 26, 2018 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on March 1, 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 the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on March 7, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 27, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 28, 2018.
The Center appointed Steven A. Maier as the sole panelist in this matter on April 6, 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. Consolidation of Proceedings
While four of the disputed domain names have a common registrant, namely Maddisyn Fernandes, the fifth name, , has a different registrant, namely Whois Privacy Corp, and the Registrar has not identified the underlying registrant of this disputed domain name. The Complainant seeks nevertheless to consolidate the proceedings in respect of all the disputed domain names.
The criteria for consolidation of proceedings against multiple registrants are summarized in paragraph 4.11.2 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), which states that panels will consider whether (i) the domain names or corresponding websites are subject to common control, and (ii) the consolidation would be fair and equitable to all parties. The WIPO Overview 3.0 also sets out examples of factors which may indicate that domain names or websites are subject to common control.
The Complainant has made a number of submissions as to why the disputed domain name should be viewed as being in common control with the other disputed domain names. In particular, the Complainant contends (among other matters) that all five of the disputed domain names were originally registered in the name of Whois Privacy Corp; that the disputed domain name has a Registrar in common with the names and ; that the format of the name is similar to that of the disputed domain names and , all of which are cases of “typosquatting”; and that the disputed domain name resolves to the same third-party website as the disputed domain name .
In the view of the Panel, the Complainant’s submissions above are sufficient to give rise to a prima facie case for consolidation of the proceedings. In the absence of a response from any registrant of the disputed domain names, whether disputing the Complainant’s contentions or opposing the request for consolidation, the Panel concludes on balance that (i) the domain names or corresponding websites are subject to common control, and (ii) the consolidation would be fair and equitable to all parties. The Panel therefore determines that the proceedings in respect of all five of the disputed domain names be consolidated. 5. Factual Background
The Complainant is a Nevada, United States corporation and was formerly known as Rooms to Go, Inc. It is the licensor of the sale of retail furniture under the brand name and trademark ROOMS TO GO, through both physical and online stores.
The Complainant is the owner of various United States trademark registrations for the mark ROOMS TO GO, including, for example, United States trademark number 1756239 for the mark ROOMS TO GO registered on March 2, 1993 for retail furniture store services in Class 42.
The disputed domain names were respectively registered on the following dates:
on July 7, 2004;
on August 7, 2005;
on August 28, 2006;
on September 14, 2011;
on June 30, 2013.
The Complainant has provided evidence by way of screen captures that each of the disputed domain names has at some time resolved as follows:
to a parking page containing links to various suppliers of bedroom, living room and other furniture;
to the commercial website of a third-party automobile dealer;
to an Amazon webpage offering gift cards for sale;
to a parking page including links to suppliers of furniture and various other goods and services; and
to the same third-party website as in the case of . 6. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant states that it was founded in 1991 and has operated a website at “” since 1996. It states that it is consistently ranked among the top five United States furniture store chains and that it has current estimated annual sales of USD 2.35 billion and more than 140 showrooms. The Complainant states that it has invested millions of dollars over the years in developing the reputation of its ROOMS TO GO mark and that the mark enjoys a high level of public recognition.
The Complainant submits that each of the disputed domain names is identical or confusingly similar to its ROOMS TO GO trademark. It contends in particular that the disputed domain name incorporates the whole of its trademark together with the generic term “warehouse”; that incorporates an obvious spelling mistake by the addition of an extra “o” and is therefore a clear case of “typosquatting”, that is identical to the Complainant’s trademark, with only the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) being different from that used by the Complainant for its own website; and that are further examples of “typosquatting”, being only one character different from the Complainant’s trademark.
The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of any of the disputed domain names. The Complainant submits that is not connected with the Respondent, that it has never authorized the Respondent to use its ROOMS TO GO trademark and that the Respondent has never been known by names corresponding to any of the disputed domain names. The Complainant submits that the Respondent is using the disputed domain names, which include the Complainant’s mark and common misspellings of that mark, misleadingly to divert Internet traffic to pay-per-click or other websites, which it says cannot constitute any bona fide use of the disputed domain names.
The Complainant submits that the Respondent registered and has used the disputed domain names in bad faith. It points out that each of the disputed domain names was registered many years after the Complainant starting using its ROOMS TO GO mark and that each of the disputed domain names incorporates that trademark or involves a common misspelling of it. It contends that the Respondent is using each of the disputed domain names misleadingly to drive Internet traffic to pay-per-click and other websites by misrepresenting an association with the Complainant’s trademark (paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy).
The Complainant further submits that the Respondent, Maddisyn Fernandes, is an “adjudicated serial cybersquatter” and cites 11 prior decisions under the UDRP against that Respondent involving 27 domain names. The Complainant alleges in these circumstances that the Respondent has registered each of the disputed domain names for the purpose of preventing the Complainant itself from registering those domain names and that the Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct (paragraph 4(b)(ii) of the Policy).
The Complainant requests the transfer of each of the disputed domain names. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 7. Discussion and Findings
In order to succeed in the Complaint, the Complainant is required to show that all three of the elements set out under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are present. Those elements are:
(i) that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;
(ii) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names; and
(iii) that the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith.
Even in a case such as this where the Respondent has failed to respond, it is still necessary for the Complainant to demonstrate that each of the above elements is present. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established that it is the owner of registered trademark rights in the mark ROOMS TO GO. The disputed domain name is effectively identical to the Complainant’s trademark, the gTLD being disregarded for the purposes of comparison. The disputed domain name incorporates the whole of the Complainant’s mark together with the dictionary word “warehouse” which, in the view of the Panel, does not serve to distinguish that domain name from the Complainant’s mark. Each of the three remaining disputed domain names, , and , differs from the Complainant’s mark only by the deletion or addition of one character, which in none of the cases in question serves to distinguish the disputed domain names from the Complainant’s trademark. Therefore, the Panel finds that each of the disputed domain names is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
In the view of the Panel, the Complainant’s submissions set out above give rise to a prima facie case for the Respondent to answer that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of any of the disputed domain names. However, the Respondent has not participated in this proceeding and has not, therefore, submitted any explanation for the registration and use of the disputed domain names, or evidence of rights or legitimate interests in any of the disputed domain names, whether in the circumstances contemplated by paragraph 4(c) of the Policy or otherwise. There being no other evidence before the Panel of any such rights or legitimate interests, the Panel concludes that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of any of the disputed domain names. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
In the light of the Complainant’s submissions, the nature of the disputed domain names (including in all but one case obvious misspellings of the Complainant’s mark) and the lack of any response from the Respondent, the Panel concludes that each of the disputed domain names was registered in the knowledge of the Complainant’s trademark ROOMS TO GO and with the intention of taking unfair advantage of the goodwill attaching to that trademark by misrepresenting an association between each of the disputed domain names and the Complainant’s mark. Further, the Panel finds that the Respondent has taken such unfair advantage by using each of the disputed domain names for the purposes of linking to pay-per-click or other commercial websites from which it is to be inferred that the Respondent obtains remuneration. Specifically, the Panel finds that by using each of the disputed domain names, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its (or other) websites by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its website or of products or services on its website (paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy).
The Panel therefore finds that each of the disputed domain names was registered and has been used in bad faith. 8. 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.
Steven A. Maier
Sole Panelist
Date: April 16, 2018
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy