The Complainant is Guitar Center, Inc., United States of America (“United States”), represented by Much Shelist PC, United States.
The Respondent is Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot, United States / Zhichao, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The Disputed Domain Name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 18, 2020. On June 18, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On June 19, 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 June 22, 2020 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 amendment to the Complaint on June 26, 2020. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to 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 June 30, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 20, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on July 21, 2020. The Center appointed Pablo A. Palazzi as the sole panelist in this matter on July 29, 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 The Complainant is Guitar Center, Inc., a company incorporated in the United States. The Complaint, sells musical instruments and related goods worldwide. In addition, the Complainant operates the e-commerce platform at the website “www.guitarcenter.com”. The Complainant is the owner of numerous trademarks for GUITAR CENTER, the earliest of which is United States registered trademark No. 1290481, registered on August 14, 1984 (the “Trademark”). The Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name The Complainant contentions can be summarized as follows: Identical or confusingly similar The Complainant contends that it has established rights in the GUITAR CENTER trademark. The Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the GUITAR CENER trademark since it incorporates the entirety of the GUITAR CENTER trademark. The addition of the word “career” does not avoid the confusingly similarity. Rights or legitimate interests The Complainant states that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. In addition, the Complainant contends that there has never been any relationship between the Respondent. Furthermore, the Complainant has not authorized the Respondent to use the GUITAR CENTER trademark for any purpose. Registration and use in bad faith The Complainant alleges that the GUITAR CENTER trademark is well-known due to its longstanding use and its trademarks registrations around the world. Thus, it is implausible that the Respondent was not aware of the Complainant’s trademark when it registered the Disputed Domain Name. The Complainant further states that the Respondent knew about the GUITAR CENTER trademark and targeted the Complainant when it registered the Disputed Domain Name. The addition of the word “career” to the Complainant trademarks shows knowledge of the Complainant as major participant in its market space, and thereby a major employer. Finally, the Complainant states that the fact that the Respondent concealed its identity and locations by using a privacy protection service demonstrates its bad faith. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy lists the three elements, which the Complainant must satisfy with respect to the Disputed Domain Name at issue in this case: (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 Disputed Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar Based on the evidence submitted, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name The Disputed Domain Name only differs from the Complainant’s trademark with the addition of the term “career”. The addition of such term does not eliminate the confusing similarity with the Complainant’s trademark. Therefore, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the first requirement of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances any of which is sufficient to demonstrate that the Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name: (i) before any notice to you 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 (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 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. There is no evidence of the existence of any of those rights or legitimate interests. The Complainant has not authorized, licensed, or permitted the Respondent to register or use the Disputed Domain Name or to use the trademark in the Disputed Domain Name. The Complainant has prior rights in the trademark, which precede the Respondent’s registration of the Disputed Domain Name. In addition, the Respondent is not known by the Disputed Domain Name. The Respondent has failed to show that it has acquired any rights with respect to the Disputed Domain Name. Moreover, the Respondent had the opportunity to demonstrate its rights or legitimate interests, but it did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. As such, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the second requirement of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Respondent was in the Panel’s view well aware of the Complainant’s prior rights and business, since the Disputed Domain Name was created on March 26, 2020, while the Complainant had the registration of its trademarks since 1984. Indeed, the Respondent could not have been unaware of the Complainant’s trademark and business when it acquired the Disputed Domain Name which appends the term “career” to the mark; it would defy logic to suggest that this composition resulted from anything other than a clear awareness of, and intent to target, the Complainant. The Respondent has not denied these assertions because of its default. The Panel is of the view that the Respondent knew of the Complainant’s trademark and prior rights. Paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy states: “by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your web site or location or of a product or service on your web site or location.” In the case at hand, in view of the Respondent’s registration of a domain name confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, used for PPC links associated with the Complainant’s services, the absence of any documented rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent in the Disputed Domain Names and its failure to respond to the Complaint, constitute bad faith. In addition, the Respondent has taken active steps to conceal its true identity through a privacy service. The Panel is of the view that this particular conduct evidences the Respondent’s bad faith. Due to this conduct, it is obvious that the Respondent intentionally created likelihood confusion with the Complainant’s trademark and websites in order to attract Internets users for its own commercial gain, as required by paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. Therefore, taking all circumstances into account and for all the above reasons, the Panel concludes that there is bad faith in the registration and use of the Disputed Domain Name. 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 Pablo A. Palazzi
Sole Panelist
Date: August 12, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy