The Complainant is CWI, Inc., United States of America (“United States”), represented by Neal & McDevitt, United States.
The Respondent is Registration Private, Domains by Proxy, LLC, United States / Matthew Dunlop, Australia. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 1, 2020. On April 3, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On April 3, 2020, 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 April 7, 2020, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant did not submit an amendment to the Complaint. On April 9, 2020, the Center received an email communication from the Respondent, in which it indicated that it would “amend [the] complaint and will pay for $171.01 owing next week”. On the same date, the Center replied to the Respondent, providing further information concerning the nature of the proceeding. 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 proceedings commenced on April 20, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 10, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. On May 11, 2020, the Center notified the Parties that it would proceed to Panel Appointment. The Center appointed Assen Alexiev as the sole panelist in this matter on May 27, 2020. 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. On June 14, 2020, the Panel issued its Procedural Order No.1, by which, in view of the Respondent’s statements made in its April 9, 2020 message to the Center, it invited the Respondent to clarify by July 3, 2020, whether the disputed domain name has been registered in its own name, on its own behalf, for its own use, or for a third party. The Respondent did not submit any clarifications within the time limit fixed by the Panel. 4. Factual Background The Complainant operates the United States’ largest network of recreational vehicle (“RV”) sales, RV equipment and accessories, and RV service centers under the trademark CAMPING WORLD. Since the company’s inception in the mid-1960s, it has grown to over 130 retail and service locations in North America, and currently employs more than 3,600 employees and serves more than 4 million customers. The Complainant owns the following trademark registrations for CAMPING WORLD (the “CAMPING WORLD trademark”): - the United States trademark CAMPING WORLD with registration No. 930,179, registered on February 29, 1972 for services in International Class 42; - the United States trademark CAMPING WORLD with registration No. 4,532,411, registered on May 20, 2014 for services in International Classes 35, 37, and 39; - the United States trademark CAMPING WORLD with registration No. 4,536,315, registered on May 27, 2014 for services in International Classes 35, 37, and 39; and - the United States trademark CAMPING WORLD with registration No. 4,536,313, registered on May 27, 2014 for services in International Classes 35, 37, and 39. The Complainant is also the registrant of the domain names The disputed domain name was registered on November 11, 2019. It is currently inactive. According to the evidence submitted by the Complainant, for a period of time it resolved to a website that offered outdoor recreation-related products, most of them priced in Australian dollars and a few in United States dollars. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the CAMPING WORLD trademark and to the Complainant’s domain names According to the Complainant, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Complainant’s CAMPING WORLD trademark was registered long before the registration of the disputed domain name, and the Complainant has not authorized the Respondent to register or use the disputed domain name or the CAMPING WORLD trademark for any purpose, and especially not in connection with an online retail store selling camping related goods and equipment. The unauthorized linking of the disputed domain name with the online offering of such goods is confusing and serves as a “bait” to attract customers to the Respondent’s website. The Complainant submits that when it learned of the registration and use of the disputed domain name, it submitted a trademark infringement report to the content service provider, following which the Respondent ceased offering goods or services on its website and published a notice stating “We’ll Be Back Soon”. The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. According to it, as a result of the longstanding use and promotion of the Complainant’s goods and services under the CAMPING WORLD trademark throughout the United States and elsewhere, this trademark has become well known in North America in connection with recreational, motor home and camper sales and related services, camping equipment and accessories, and recreational vehicle parts and maintenance. The Complainant submits that Internet users could easily be confused to associate the disputed domain name with the Complainant given the use of the CAMPING WORLD trademark within the disputed domain name and the header of the website in connection with the sale of similar camping goods as sold by the Complainant. By registering and using the disputed domain name, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the CAMPING WORLD trademark and by offering goods and services similar to those of the Complainant for commercial gain. B. Respondent The Respondent sent an email to the Center stating that it would pay unspecified past due fees but did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Pursuant to the Policy, paragraph 4(a), the Complainant must prove each of the following to justify the transfer of the disputed domain name: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a 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 Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. In this case, the Center has employed the required measures to achieve actual notice of the Complaint to the Respondent, in compliance with the Rules, paragraph 2(a), and the Respondent was given a fair opportunity to present its case. By the Rules, paragraph 5(c)(i), it is expected of a respondent to: “[r]espond specifically to the statements and allegations contained in the complaint and include any and all bases for the Respondent (domain name holder) to retain registration and use of the disputed domain name …” The Respondent however did not submit a Response in this proceeding. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant has provided evidence and has thus established its rights in the CAMPING WORLD trademark. The Panel notes that a common practice has emerged under the Policy to disregard in appropriate circumstances the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) section of domain names for the purposes of the comparison under the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i). See section 1.11.1 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”). The Panel sees no reason not to follow the same approach here, so it will disregard the “.com” gTLD section of the disputed domain name. The relevant part of the disputed domain name is therefore the sequence “campingworld4u”. It consists of the elements “camping”, “world”, and “4u”. The combination of the first two elements is identical to the CAMPING WORLD trademark, while the addition to it of the abbreviation “4u”, commonly used to mean “for you” does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the trademark, which remains clearly recognizable in it. Where the relevant trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain name, the addition of other terms would not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element. See section 1.8 of WIPO Overview 3.0. In view of the above, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the CAMPING WORLD trademark in which the Complainant has rights. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests While the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, UDRP panels have recognized that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the often-impossible task of “proving a negative”, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. As such, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. See section 2.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 . The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, stating that it has not permitted the Respondent to use the CAMPING WORLD trademark or to register the disputed domain name. The unauthorized use of the disputed domain name which reproduces the Complainant’s mark and adds “4U” is likely confusing for consumers and serves as a “bait” to attract them to the Respondent’s website. Thus, the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not disputed the above statements of the Complainant. It has not alleged before the Panel that it has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and has not submitted any evidence in this regard. The Respondent has not submitted the clarification requested by the Panel with Procedural Order No.1, so in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the Panel accepts that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name on its own behalf and for its own purposes. The disputed domain name incorporates the CAMPING WORLD trademark in combination with “4u” and has been used for the offering of goods that are similar to the goods offered by the Complainant. The Panel notes the Complainant’s claim of having more than 300 domain names registered incorporating the CAMPING WORLD trademark (including Therefore, the Panel finds that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy lists four illustrative alternative circumstances that shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith by a respondent, namely: “(i) circumstances indicating that you have registered or you have acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of your documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or (ii) you have 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 you have engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or (iii) you have registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or (iv) by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your website or location or of a product or service on your website or location.” The Respondent has registered the disputed domain name many years after the Complainant registered the CAMPING WORLD trademark for the first time and started using it for its business. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the CAMPING WORLD trademark and has been used for a website that has offered goods similar to those of the Complainant. The Panel also notes that the Complainant has been operating for more than 50 years, that the Complainant uses the domain name Taking the above into account, and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the Panel is satisfied that it is more likely than not that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s CAMPING WORLD trademark and of its goodwill when it registered the disputed domain name, and that the Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in an attempt to exploit the goodwill of the Complainant and of its trademark for confusing Internet users that its website and the goods offered on it are related to the Complainant. Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name has been registered and 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 name Assen Alexiev
Sole Panelist
Date: July 15, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy