The Complainant is Lumber Liquidators, Inc., United States of America, represented by Troutman Sanders, LLP, United States of America.
The Respondent is Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC / Fundacion Comercio Electronico, Carolina Rodrigues, Panama. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed 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 August 16, 2019. On August 19, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On August 20, 2019, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on August 20, 2019, 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 August 20, 2019.
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 August 21, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 10, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on September 11, 2019.
The Center appointed Andrea Mondini as the sole panelist in this matter on September 20, 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
The Complainant is a publicly-held Delaware company, with stores in 46 states and over 1,000 employees. It is a major provider and retailer of hardwood flooring and flooring-related products in the United States and Canada.
The Complainant owns the United States trademark registration no. 5046001 LL FLOORING which was filed on May 6, 2014 and registered on September 20, 2016 in class 35 for retail and wholesale store services and distributorship services featuring flooring products. The Complainant also holds the domain name .
The disputed domain name was registered on July 2, 2019, and resolved to a website with a pay-per-click (“PPC”) links offering flooring products competing with the Complainant’s products. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant in essence contends the following:
The Complainant opened its first LUMBER LIQUIDATORS store location in January 1996. Over the years, the Complainant has grown into a publicly traded company with hundreds of retail store locations in the U.S. and Canada. Over time, the Complainant expanded its brand to include the mark LL as a standalone mark and also as a component of a family of marks, including LL FLOORING.
The disputed domain name incorporates the LL FLOORING mark in its entirety and is phonetically equivalent to this mark. The misspelling in the disputed domain name (“floring” instead of “flooring”) does not dispel a confusing similarity but rather constitutes typosquatting.
The Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests with respect to the disputed domain name. In particular, the Respondent has not been licensed by the Complainant to use its trademark and has no affiliation with the Complainant whatsoever.
The Respondent used the disputed domain name to advertise competing hardwood flooring products and other flooring products through a “Related Links” section of its website.
The Respondent’s awareness of the Complainant’s brand is demonstrated by the fact that it chose a domain name that fully incorporates its mark.
The disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith, because the Respondent intentionally registered and used a domain name almost identical to the Complainant’s mark (just one letter is different) to attract Internet users to the Respondent’s site which offers products competing with the Complainant’s product.
The Complainant requests the transfer of the disputed domain name to the Complainant. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, in order to succeed, a complainant must establish each of the following elements:
(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the 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 Complainant has shown that it holds a US registration for the trademark LL FLOORING.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, because it corresponds phonetically to the Complainant’s mark. The misspelling “floring” instead of “flooring” does not dispel confusing similarity, but rather is evidence of typosquatting.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirement under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant contends, credibly, that the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, that the Respondent has not been authorized by the Complainant to use the Complainant’s trademark in the disputed domain name, and that there is no relationship whatsoever between the Parties.
In the absence of any Response, the Panel concludes that the Respondent was not authorized or licensed to use the Complainant’s trademark in the disputed domain name, and that there is no indication of any legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Therefore, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirement under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The fact that the Respondent registered a domain name identical to the Complainant’s trademark except for a typo (“floring” instead of “flooring”), shows that when registering the disputed domain name the Respondent must have had actual knowledge of the Complainant’s mark and that it intended to take advantage of possible typing errors when Internet users enter a domain name into their browser, in order to attract them to a website offering flooring products competing with the Complainant’s products.
In the absence of any Response, the Panel thus concludes that the disputed domain name has been registered and used in bad faith.
The Panel therefore finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirement under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. 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.
Andrea Mondini
Sole Panelist
Date: September 24, 2019
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy