Complainant is Asurion, LLC of Nashville, Tennessee, United States of America, represented by Adams and Reese LLP, United States of America.
Respondent is Cindy Willis of Las Vegas Nevada, United States of America. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with 1&1 IONOS Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 17, 2018. On November 19, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On November 19, 2018, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. In response to a notification by the Center that the Complaint was administratively deficient, Complainant filed an amended to the Complaint on December 3, 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 December 6, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 26, 2018. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on December 27, 2018.
The Center appointed Robert A. Badgley as the sole panelist in this matter on January 11, 2019. 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
According to the Complaint, Complainant “offers insurance, technology, mobile phone replacement, configuration, technical support, IT consultation, and related products and services under the ASURION mark.” Complainant has used the ASURION mark since 2001, and that mark has been registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office since March 2003. Complainant has also registered the ASURION mark in dozens of other jurisdictions around the world.
Complainant owns the domain name and uses that domain name to host Complainant’s main website. According to the Complaint, that site received 7.9 million visitors in 2017.
The Domain Name was registered on September 6, 2018. The Domain Name resolves to a parking page which contains generic hyperlinks (which Complainant asserts to be pay-per-click links) under headings such as “claiming insurance” and “mobile phone repairs.” 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
Complainant asserts that it has established the 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 ASURION through registration and use. The Panel also finds the Domain Name to be identical to the mark.
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.
The Panel concludes that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. It is undisputed that Complainant never granted permission to Respondent to use its ASURION trademark in any manner. Respondent has not come forward in this proceeding to articulate or prove her rights or legitimate interests 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 online 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 Respondent has registered and used the Domain Name in bad faith.
The Panel first finds it more likely than not that Respondent had Complainant’s inherently distinctive – and well-known – ASURION mark in mind when registering the Domain Name. See Asurion, LLC v. Colours Ltd.,WIPO Case No. D2013-0388 (finding six years ago that “Complainant’s [ASURION] trademarks and activities are well-known throughout the world”). Respondent has not come forward to deny knowledge of the mark.
Respondent also has used the Domain Name in bad faith pursuant to the above-quoted Policy paragraph 4(b)(iv). Complainant alleges plausibly that Respondent derives per-click revenue through the hyperlinks at her website. Respondent has not denied this. The Panel finds it probable that Respondent registered and has used the Domain Name in order to lure Internet users, for commercial gain, to her site by creating confusion as to the source or sponsorship of the Domain Name.
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: January 14, 2019
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy