The Complainant is Collectors Universe, Inc., United States of America (“United States”), represented by Law Offices of Armen R. Vartian, United States.
The Respondent is Cameron Haineault, Canada. 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, 2021. On June 18, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On June 22, 2021, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. 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 June 29, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 19, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on July 26, 2021. The Center appointed Steven A. Maier as the sole panelist in this matter on August 5, 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. The Panel issued a Procedural Order on August 18, 2021 requiring the Complainant to provide evidence in support of its contentions concerning the content of the Respondent’s website and allowing the Respondent an opportunity to respond. The Complainant responded to the Procedural Order on August 18, 2021. The Respondent did not respond. 4. Factual Background The Complainant is a corporation located in California, United States. It is engaged in the business of authenticating sports cards, autographs and other sports memorabilia under the name and trademark PSA. The Complainant encapsulates sports cards in tamper-evident plastic holders including a PSA branded label containing information about the card and grade. The Complainant is the owner of numerous United States trademark registrations for marks which comprise or incorporate the term PSA. Those trademarks include United States trademark number 3032373 for the word mark PSA, registered on December 20, 2005 for goods and services including: “Sports card grading and authentication services and providing information about sports card authentication and grading over the Internet” in International Class 42. The Complainant operates a website at “www.psacard.com”. The disputed domain name was registered on January 17, 2021. The Complainant has provided evidence that the disputed domain name has resolved to a website at “www.psaontario.com”. The website offers “PSA GRADING SERVICE SUPPLIES” and contains images of sports cards in plastic holders including a PSA branded labels. The website invites visitors to complete a form and submit sports cards for “PSA GRADING”. It also indicates that certain products are “not accepted by PSA”. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant states that it does not deal with collectors directly, but operates a network of authorized dealers who accept items from collectors and submit them to the Complainant. The Complainant provides particulars of four such authorized dealers located in Canada. The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark PSA as it combines that trademark with the geographical term “ontario”, thereby implying that the Respondent is its authorized dealer in the Ontario region. The Complainant submits that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name because it is not an authorized dealer of the Complainant and the Complainant has never licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use its PSA trademark. The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. It contends that the Respondent is deliberately mispresenting itself as an authorized PSA dealer, which diverts business from its genuine authorized dealers and may harm the Complainant’s relationship with those dealers. The Complainant further submits that items may be lost or damaged by the Respondent and that, in any event, its encapsulation of sports cards in counterfeit PSA holders will damage confidence in the Complainant’s goods in the marketplace. The Complainant requests the transfer of the disputed domain name. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings In order to succeed in the Complaint, the Complainant is required to show that all three of the elements set out under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are present. Those elements are: (i) that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and The Complainant has demonstrated that it has registered trademark rights in the mark PSA. The disputed domain name The trademark PSA comprises three ordinary letters and is linked in the disputed domain name to the geographical term “ontario”. In the view of the Panel, therefore, it might be possible for the Respondent to demonstrate rights in the disputed domain name if it were genuinely using that name in connection with another business named or abbreviated PSA, in the Ontario region, without intent to target the Complainant’s trademark. In this case, however, it is clear from the content of the Respondent’s website that the disputed domain name is intended to refer to the Complainant’s trademark PSA and to attract business based on a misrepresentation of a connection with the Complainant. This cannot constitute bona fide use of the disputed domain name and the Panel finds in the circumstances that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith In the view of the Panel, it is clear that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name with the Complainant’s PSA trademark and business in mind and with the intention of associating the disputed domain name with that trademark. That conclusion follows from the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name for a website which clearly references the Complainant’s business, includes images of its products and is likely to lead Internet users to believe that it is in some way approved by or affiliated with the Complainant. In particular, the Panel accepts the Complainant’s submissions that Internet users are likely wrongly to believe that the disputed domain name and the Respondent’s website are owned or operated by an authorized dealer who is legitimately connected with the Complainant. The Panel finds that the Respondent’s actions take unfair advantage of the Complainant’s trademark by potentially diverting business intended for its authorized dealers and cause unfair detriment to that trademark by associating it with services that the Complainant neither provides nor controls. The Panel finds in the circumstances that, by using the disputed domain name, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its website or of a product or service on its website (paragraph 4(b)(iv) 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 Steven A. Maier
(ii) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
(iii) that the disputed domain name has been registered and are being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Sole Panelist
Date: September 2, 2021
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy