ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION J-B Weld Company, LLC v. Adam Weaver, SteelsealOnline Brand Manager Case No. D2023-4349 1. The Parties The Complainant is J-B Weld Company, LLC, United States of America ("United States"), represented by Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, L.L.P., United States. The Respondent is Adam Weaver, SteelsealOnline Brand Manager, United Kingdom. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name is registered with 123-Reg Limited (the "Registrar"). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on October 19, 2023. On October 20, 2023, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On October 24, 2023, 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 October 26, 2023. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was November 15, 2023. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on November 17, 2023. The Center appointed Edoardo Fano as the sole panelist in this matter on November 30, 2023. 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. page 2 On December 1, 2023, the Respondent sent an email communication to the Center, expressing its willingness to transfer the disputed domain name in exchange for the payment of the costs of the transfer and the maintenance of the registration. In view of the above communication, and according to paragraph 17 of the Rules, on December 5, 2023, the Panel issued a Procedural Order, offering the possibility to the Parties to suspend the present proceedings in order to explore settlement options, and giving the Complainant the deadline of December 11, 2023, for submitting a request for suspension. However, the Complainant did not request for suspension. The Panel has not received any requests from the Complainant or the Respondent regarding further submissions, waivers or extensions of deadlines, and the Panel has not found it necessary to request any further information from the Parties. Having reviewed the communication records in the case file provided by the Center, the Panel finds that the Center has discharged its responsibility under the Rules, paragraph 2(a), "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to [the] Respondent". Therefore, the Panel shall issue its Decision based upon the Complaint, the Policy, the Rules and the Supplemental Rules and without the benefit of a formal response from the Respondent. The language of the proceeding is English, being the language of the Registration Agreement, as per paragraph 11(a) of the Rules. 4. Factual Background The Complainant is J-B Weld Company, LLC, a United States company founded in 1969, operating in the epoxy products field, and owning several trademark registrations for J-B WELD, among which: - United States Trademark Registration No. 1008265 for J-B WELD, registered on April 8, 1975; - United States Trademark Registration No. 4869402 for J-B WELD and design, registered on December 15, 2015; - United Kingdom Trademark Registration No. UK00002291187 for J-B WELD, registered on July 5, 2002. The Complainant also operates on the Internet, its main website being "www.jbweld.com". The Complainant provided evidence in support of the above. According to the WhoIs records, the disputed domain name was registered on December 12, 2012, and it directs to an inactive website. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain name. Notably, the Complainant states that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar, if not identical, to its trademark J-B WELD, as the disputed domain name wholly contains the Complainant's trademark. Moreover, the Complainant asserts that the Respondent, a former distribution customer of the Complainant, has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name since it has not been authorized by the Complainant to register the disputed domain name or to use its trademark within the disputed domain name, it is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and it is not making either a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. page 3 The Complainant submits that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name in bad faith, since the Complainant's trademark J-B WELD is distinctive and well known in the epoxy products field. Therefore, the Respondent targeted the Complainant's trademark at the time of registration of the disputed domain name and the Complainant contends that the passive holding of the disputed domain name qualifies as bad faith registration and use. B. Respondent The Respondent has made no formal reply to the Complainant's contentions. The Respondent sent an informal communication on December 1, 2023, stating that "We are happy to transfer this domain, we would just look for the costs of the transfer to be covered and the costs of maintain the registration for the period in which we have held it, not looking to profit just merely to recoup our costs which I would think you would consider fair." A respondent is not obliged to participate in a proceeding under the Policy, but if it fails to submit a formal response, reasonable facts asserted by a complainant may be taken as true, and appropriate inferences, in accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, may be drawn. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition ("WIPO Overview 3.0"), section 4.3. 6. Discussion and Findings Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy lists three elements, which the Complainant must satisfy in order to succeed: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and (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 It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the Complainant's trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7. Based on the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1. The Panel finds the entirety of the mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7. It is also well accepted that a generic Top-Level Domain ("gTLD"), in this case ".com", is typically ignored when assessing the similarity between a trademark and a domain name. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.11.1. Based on the available record, the Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which the Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name. page 4 While the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, 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. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1. Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds 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 rebutted the Complainant's prima facie showing and has not come forward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. Moreover, the Panel finds that the composition of the disputed domain name carries a risk of implied affiliation as it effectively impersonates or suggests sponsorship or endorsement by the Complainant. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.5.1. Based on the available record, the Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel notes that for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, paragraph 4(b) of the Policy establishes circumstances, in particular but without limitation, that if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith. In the present case, regarding the registration in bad faith of the disputed domain name, the reputation of the Complainant's trademark J-B WELD in the epoxy products field is clearly established, and the Panel finds that the Respondent must have known of the Complainant, and deliberately registered the disputed domain name in bad faith, especially because the Respondent is a former distribution customer of the Complainant. As regards the use of the disputed domain name, directing to and inactive website, panels have found that the non-use of a domain name (including a blank or "coming soon" page) would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds the non-use of the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith in the circumstances of this proceeding. While panels will look at the totality of the circumstances in each case, factors that have been considered relevant in applying the passive holding doctrine include: (i) the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant's mark, (ii) the failure of the respondent to submit a response or to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good-faith use, (iii) the respondent's concealing its identity or use of false contact details (noted to be in breach of its registration agreement), and (iv) the implausibility of any good faith use to which the domain name may be put. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.3. Having reviewed the record, the Panel notes the distinctiveness and reputation of the Complainant's trademark in the epoxy products field, the composition of the disputed domain name, and the failure of the Respondent to submit a formal response, and finds that in the circumstances of this case the passive holding of the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith under the Policy. Furthermore, the Panel considers that the nature of the inherently misleading disputed domain name, which includes the Complainant's trademark in its entirety with the mere shift of the hyphen, further supports a finding of bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.1. Based on the available record, the Panel finds the third element of the Policy has been established. page 5 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, , be transferred to the Complainant. /Edoardo Fano/ Edoardo Fano Sole Panelist Date: December 14, 2023
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy