ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Crutchfield Corporation v. wlliams Bogdan Case No. D2024-3342 1. The Parties Complainant is Crutchfield Corporation, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Brann & Isaacson, United States. Respondent is wlliams Bogdan, United States. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name is registered with Sav.com, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 14, 2024. On August 15, 2024, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On August 15, 2024, 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 (Redacted for Privacy) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to Complainant on August 16, 2024, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on August 21, 2024. 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on August 22, 2024. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 11, 2024. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on September 13, 2024.
page 2 The Center appointed Lorelei Ritchie as the sole panelist in this matter on September 20, 2024. 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 Complainant is a company based in the United States. For decades prior to the registration of the disputed domain name, Complainant has offered retail services of electronics and related products under the mark CRUTCHFIELD. In this regard, Complainant is the owner of United States Trademark Registration No. 1,994,416 (registered on August 20, 1996) for CRUTCHFIELD. The disputed domain name was registered on February 6, 2024. Respondent has used the disputed domain name to resolve to a website that appears to impersonate an official website of Complainant, purportedly offering for sale Complainant’s products at discounted prices, while also displaying Complainant’s registered mark on the website. Respondent has no affiliation with Complainant, nor any license to use its marks. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Complainant contends that (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainants’ trademarks, (ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and (iii) Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. Specifically, Complainant contends that it owns rights to the CRUTCHFIELD mark for which it has been “well-known as a provider” of retail services for decades. Complainant contends that Respondent has incorporated in full Complainant’s CRUTCHFIELD mark into the disputed domain name, with only “the addition of non-distinctive material.” Complainant further contends that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name, and rather has registered and is using it in bad faith, having simply acquired the disputed domain name for Respondent’s own commercial gain, with use of a website intended to confuse prospective consumers and partners of Complainant. B. Respondent Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings 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 Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7. Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark, CRUTCHFIELD, for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1. Although the addition of other terms (here, the letters “eds”) may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such terms does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and Complainant’s mark for purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8.
page 3 The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name. Although 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 difficult 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 (although the burden of proof always remains on the complainant). 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 available record, the Panel finds Complainant has established a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent has not rebutted 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. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity, including impersonating an official website or the sale of counterfeit goods, can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.13.1. The Panel finds that Complainant has provided sufficient evidence of Respondent’s lack of “rights or legitimate interests” in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy which Respondent has not rebutted. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith There are several ways that a complainant can demonstrate that a domain name was registered and used in bad faith. These include, for example, as set forth in Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy, (i) registration to sell the domain name to the complainant at a profit; (ii) pattern of bad faith conduct; (iii) disrupting the business of a competitor; or (iv) intentionally attempting to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark. Noting that that the Complainant’s trademark predates the registration of the disputed domain name and considering that the disputed domain name resolves to a website impersonating the Complainant’s official website, it is inconceivable that the Respondent could have registered the disputed domain name without knowledge of the Complainant’s trademark. In the circumstances of this case, this is evidence of registration in bad faith. As noted in Section 4 of this Panel’s decision, Respondent has used the disputed domain name to resolve to a website that appears to impersonate an official website of Complainant, offering for sale the types of products sold by Complainant under its CRUTCHFIELD retail services at discounted prices, while also displaying Complainant’s registered mark on the website. Therefore, the Panel finds sufficient evidence that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith for purposes of paragraph (4)(a)(iii) of the Policy.
page 4 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 Complainant. /Lorelei Ritchie/ Lorelei Ritchie Sole Panelist Date: October 2, 2024
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy