Complainant is Rheem Manufacturing Company, United States of America (“United States” or “U.S”), represented by Troutman Sanders, LLP, United States.
Respondent is Mayan Schwartz, United States. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The Disputed Domain Name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 20, 2020. On May 21, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On June 2, 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 named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to Complainant on June 8, 2020 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 June 8, 2020. 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 June 10, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was June 30, 2020. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on July 1, 2020. The Center appointed Lawrence K. Nodine as the sole panelist in this matter on July 9, 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. 4. Factual Background Founded in 1925, Complainant is a large manufacturer of commercial and residential equipment, including water heaters, boilers, refrigeration, and other heating and cooling equipment. Complainant offers its products in over fifty countries around the world. Since 1925, Complainant has used the trademark RHEEM in connection with its products and services. Complainant owns several registrations for its RHEEM mark in multiple jurisdictions, including United States Registration No. 669,287, registered on November 4, 1958, and United States Registration No. 671,120, registered on December 16, 1958. Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name on April 27, 2020. The Disputed Domain Name resolves to a website containing pay-per-click (“PPC”) links which reference Complainant’s products and services, as well as products and services of Complainant’s competitors. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Complainant asserts that it has established rights in the RHEEM mark and that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the RHEEM mark. Complainant contends that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the Disputed Domain Name; that Respondent has not licensed or authorized to use the RHEEM mark in the Disputed Domain Name; that Respondent owns no trademark rights in the Disputed Domain Name; and that there is no indication that Respondent is commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name. As to Respondent’s bad faith, Complainant further asserts that there is no legitimate basis for Respondent’s registration and use of the Disputed Domain Name. According to Complainant, the content on the PPC website associated with the Disputed Domain Name exemplifies Respondent’s bad faith. B. Respondent Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar Complainant has established its rights in the RHEEM trademark by way of its trademark registrations. The Top-Level Domain “.store” may be disregarded under the first element confusing similarity test. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0”), sections 1.7 and 1.11. The Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is identical to Complainant’s RHEEM mark. Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant has presented a prima facie case for Respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name, which Respondent has failed to rebut. Complainant has not consented to or authorized Respondent’s use of Complainant’s mark in the Disputed Domain Name. Nothing in the factual record suggests that Respondent is commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name. Further, Respondent’s use of the Disputed Domain Name in connection with a PPC website is not a bona fide offering of goods or services. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0, section 2.9. Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel finds that Respondent registered and used the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith. The Disputed Domain Name consists of Complainant’s entire RHEEM trademark. The Panel is not aware of any non-trademark meaning of the term “rheem” and Respondent has offered none. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent most likely knew of Complainant and Complainant’s mark when it registered the Disputed Domain Name. The Panel also finds that Respondent’s use of the Disputed Domain Name in connection with a PPC website featuring links relating to Complainant’s business, including links to products and services offered by Complainant’s competitors, demonstrates bad faith use. Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1.1 (“While panel assessment remains fact-specific, generally speaking such circumstances [indicating bad faith), alone or together, include: (i) the respondent’s likely knowledge of the complainant’s rights, (ii) the distinctiveness of the complainant’s mark . . . (iv) website content targeting the complainant’s trademark, e.g., through links to the complainant’s competitors . . . (vii) failure of a respondent to present a credible evidence-backed rationale for registering the domain name,”). See also, id., Section 3.5 (Respondent responsible for third party generated pay-per-click material on website.) 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 Lawrence K. Nodine
Sole Panelist
Date: July 23, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy