The Complainant is Ammunition Operations LLC, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Reed Smith LLP, United States.
The Respondent is Domain Admin, Whois protection, this company does not own this domain name s.r.o., Czech Republic, / Hulmiho Ukolen, Poste restante, Finland. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 19, 2021. On January 20, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On January 25, 2021, 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 January 27, 2021, 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 February 1, 2021. 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 February 1, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was February 21, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 22, 2021. The Center appointed John Swinson as the sole panelist in this matter on March 26, 2021. 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 Ammunition Operations LLC, a company incorporated in the United States. According to the Complaint, the Complainant is an affiliate of Vista Outdoor, Inc., a leading designer, manufacturer and marketer of sports and recreation products. On October 12, 2020, Vista Outdoor, Inc. acquired certain assets related to Remington Outdoor Company Inc.’s ammunition and accessories businesses, including various trade marks and domain names which were assigned to the Complainant. According to the Complaint, the Complainant owns more than 150 trade marks in at least 60 different jurisdictions in connection with the Remington brand, including United States registered trade mark number 187,871 for REMINGTON, registered on August 12, 1924 (the “Trade Mark”). The Complainant also owns various domain names relating to the Remington brand, including The Respondent is Hulmiho Ukolen, an individual of Finland. The Respondent did not file a Response and consequently little information is known about the Respondent. The Disputed Domain Name was registered on December 10, 2000. The website at the Disputed Domain Name redirects users to various websites advertising various products and services, some of which compete with those offered by the Complainant. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant makes the following submissions. Identical or Confusingly Similar According to the Complaint, the Remington brand was established in 1816 and is one of the most trusted and widely recognised in the firearm, ammunition and accessories markets. In 2010, net sales of Remington-branded ammunition and accessories were approximately USD 200 million. The Remington brand has also been recognized as the top shotgun brand and one of the top rifle ammunition brands in the United States. The Complainant and its associated entities employ hundreds of individuals and operate a distribution network that extends to more than 50 countries in connection with the Remington brand. The Complainant and its predecessors in interest have used the Trade Mark since at least 1889 and expended significant time, money and resources to promote the Trade Mark and products bearing the Trade Mark. The Disputed Domain Name incorporates the Trade Mark in its entirety and is therefore confusingly similar to the Trade Mark. The Disputed Domain Name also incorporates the word “firearms”. The addition of a single, generic term to an otherwise strong trade mark does not eliminate the risk of confusion between the trade mark and the domain name. In fact, the addition of the term “firearms” increases the likelihood of confusion as the term is closely associated with the Complainant’s business. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Trade Mark has acquired a substantial reputation as a result of significant and extensive advertising and use by the Complainant and its predecessors in interest since at least 1889. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. The Respondent is not referred to or commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name, has no legal relationship with the Complainant and has not been licensed or otherwise permitted by the Complainant to use the Trade Mark or register a domain name that incorporates the Trade Mark. The Respondent has no identifiable history of using the Disputed Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. It appears the Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name in order to sell it for a substantial profit and is profiting off the goodwill in the Trade Mark by redirecting Internet users who access the Disputed Domain Name to commercial websites owned by a third parties that list competing products. Registered or Used in Bad Faith Given the fame and widespread use of the Trade Mark, it can be presumed that the Respondent was aware of the Trade Mark when the Disputed Domain Name was registered. Consequently, any use by the Respondent of the Disputed Domain Name constitutes infringement of the Complainant’s rights in the Trade Mark. Bad faith can also be presumed due to the Respondent’s pattern of registering domain names that incorporate famous or well known trade marks. The Respondent has been a party to more than 40 UDRP disputes in which panels have held that the Respondent registered and used domain names in bad faith. In addition, it appears the Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name for the purposes of selling it for a substantial profit. The Disputed Domain Name is listed for sale for USD 31,997. The Respondent has also used the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith to redirect consumers that are familiar with the Trade Mark to other websites for commercial gain. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings To succeed, the Complainant must demonstrate that all of the elements enumerated in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy have been satisfied, namely: (i) the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and The Respondent’s failure to file a Response does not automatically result in a decision in favor of the Complainant (see, e.g., Airbus SAS, Airbus Operations GmbH v. Alesini Pablo Hernan / PrivacyProtect.org, WIPO Case No. D2013-2059). However, the Panel may draw appropriate inferences from the Respondent’s lack of a Response. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy provides that the Complainant must establish that the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights. Where a domain name incorporates the entirety of a trade mark, or where at least a dominant feature of the relevant mark is recognisable in the domain name, the domain name will normally be considered confusingly similar to that mark for purposes of the first element (section 1.7, WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”)). The Disputed Domain Name incorporates the entirety of the Trade Mark, with the addition of the word “firearms”. The additional dictionary term does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity to the Trade Mark, being the Trade Mark recognisable in the Disputed Domain Name. The Complainant succeeds on the first element of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy provides that the Complainant must establish that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name. The Complainant is required to make out a prima facie case showing that the Respondent lack rights or legitimate interests. The Panel considers the Complainant has made out a prima facie case. This finding is based on the following: - The Respondent is not using (and there is no evidence that the Respondent has demonstrable preparations to use) the Disputed Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. The website at the Disputed Domain Name redirects users to various websites advertising various products and services, some of which compete with those offered by the Complainant. The Complainant also provided evidence that the Respondent is advertising the Disputed Domain Name for sale for an amount far in excess of the Respondent’s out-of-pocket costs. Such use is not bona fide. - The Complainant has not authorised or otherwise given the Respondent permission to use the Trade Mark in the Disputed Domain Name. - There is no evidence that the Respondent has been commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name, or has registered or common law trade mark rights in relation to this name. - The Respondent has not been making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Name without intent for commercial gain. As outlined above, the Disputed Domain Name redirects users to websites advertising various products and services and the Respondent is advertising the Disputed Domain Name for sale for a substantial amount. The Respondent had the opportunity to demonstrate its rights or legitimate interests, but did not do so. As such, the prima facie case established by the Complainant has not been rebutted and the Complainant succeeds on the second element of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy provides that the Complainant must establish that the Respondent registered and subsequently used the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith. Registered in bad faith If circumstances indicate that a respondent’s intent in registering a disputed domain name was to profit in some fashion from, or otherwise exploit, the complainant’s trade mark, panels will find bad faith on the part of the Respondent (see section 3.1.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0). The Trade Mark has been widely advertised and used by the Complainant and its predecessors in interest since at least 1889, more than 110 years prior to the registration of the Disputed Domain Name. The Panel accepts that the Trade Mark is famous. According to Outdoor Life: “Remingtons are ingrained in the history of the American West, thanks to the notable characters who carried them. Buffalo Bill owned several Remingtons, including a New Model Army that he got after a skirmish with Cheyenne warrior Yellow Hair. He also had a rolling-block rifle given to him personally by one of the Remington sons. His Wild West counterpart Annie Oakley carried a Remington Beals Rifle. And George Armstrong Custer used Remingtons—especially for sport.” Given the Disputed Domain Name incorporates the Trade Mark in its entirety with only the addition of the dictionary term “firearms” (which is closely associated with the Complainant’s business) and without the benefit of a response from the Respondent, the Panel can reasonably infer that the Respondent knew of the Complainant and that the registration of the Disputed Domain Name would likely be confusingly similar to the Complainant’s Trade Mark. The Respondent also has a pattern of registering domain names that incorporate trade marks of third parties and has been a party to a number of UDRP decisions in which panels have concluded that the Respondent registered and used domain names in bad faith. See for example, Pagseguro Internet S.A. v. Domain Admin, Whois protection, this company does not own this domain name s.r.o. / Hulmiho Ukolen, Poste restante,WIPO Case No. D2020-3478 and Accenture Global Services Limited v. Hulmiho Ukolen, Poste restante / Domain Admin, Whois protection,WIPO Case No. D2015-1519. Use in bad faith The Complainant provided evidence that the Respondent is advertising the Disputed Domain Name for sale for a substantial amount. This suggests that the Respondent primarily acquired the Disputed Domain Name for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring it to the Complainant or a competitor of the Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the Respondent’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the Disputed Domain Name. The Disputed Domain Name incorporates the well-known Trade Mark in its entirety, with the addition of the related term “firearms”, and redirects users to various websites advertising various products and services, some of which compete with those offered by the Complainant. This indicates that the Respondent is intentionally attempting to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s Trade Mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s website or a product or service on that website. In light of the above, and in the absence of a response and any evidence rebutting bad faith registration and use, the Complainant succeeds on the third element 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 John Swinson
(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.
Sole Panelist
Date: April 7, 2021
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy