Manpower, Inc. v. WMW Web Inc.
Claim Number: FA0511000603471
Complainant is Manpower, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Ryan M. Kaatz, of Ladas & Parry, Digital Brands Practice, 224 South Michigan Avenue, Chicago, IL 60604. Respondent is WMW Web Inc. (“Respondent”), 3422 Old Capitol Trail, #1228, Wilmington, DE 19808.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN
NAME
The domain name at issue is <manpower-mi.com>, registered with Computer Services Langenbach Gmbh d/b/a Joker.com.
The undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his or her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Honorable Paul A. Dorf (Ret.) as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on November 30, 2005; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on December 1, 2005.
On December 1, 2005, Computer Services Langenbach Gmbh d/b/a Joker.com confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <manpower-mi.com> domain name is registered with Computer Services Langenbach Gmbh d/b/a Joker.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Computer Services Langenbach Gmbh d/b/a Joker.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the Computer Services Langenbach Gmbh d/b/a Joker.com registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy").
On December 5, 2005, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of December 27, 2005 by which Respondent could file a response to the Complaint, was transmitted to Respondent via e-mail, post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts, and to postmaster@manpower-mi.com by e-mail.
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On December 29, 2005, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Honorable Paul A. Dorf (Ret.) as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the National Arbitration Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent." Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the National Arbitration Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant makes the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s <manpower-mi.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s MANPOWER mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <manpower-mi.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <manpower-mi.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Manpower, Inc., is a worldwide leader in the employment trade. Complainant has been in the staffing industry for over 55 years and is currently ranked number 140 in the Fortune 500 list of America’s largest companies. Complainant holds several trademark registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) for the MANPOWER mark (i.e., Reg. No.672,305 issued January 6, 1959).
Respondent registered the <manpower-mi.com> domain name on April 26, 2004. Respondent is using the disputed domain name to redirect Internet users to an adult-oriented website.
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable."
In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(e), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations and inferences set forth in the Complaint as true unless the evidence is clearly contradictory. See Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 31, 2000) (holding that the respondent’s failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of the complaint to be deemed true); see also Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009 (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000) (“In the absence of a response, it is appropriate to accept as true all allegations of the Complaint.”).
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred:
(1) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
(2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
Complainant has established rights in the MANPOWER mark through registration with the USPTO. See Men’s Wearhouse, Inc. v. Wick, FA 117861 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 16, 2002) (“Under U.S. trademark law, registered marks hold a presumption that they are inherently distinctive and have acquired secondary meaning.”); see also Janus Int’l Holding Co. v. Rademacher, D2002-0201 (WIPO Mar. 5, 2002) ("Panel decisions have held that registration of a mark is prima facie evidence of validity, which creates a rebuttable presumption that the mark is inherently distinctive.").
Respondent’s
<manpower-mi.com> domain name is confusingly similar to
Complainant’s MANPOWER mark because Respondent’s domain name incorporates
Complainant’s mark in its entirety, adds a hyphen, the letters “m” and “i,” and
the generic top-level domain “.com.” The
Panel finds that such minor additions to Complainant’s registered mark do not
negate the confusingly similar aspects of Respondent’s domain name pursuant to
Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See
Chernow Commc’ns, Inc. v. Kimball, D2000-0119 (WIPO May 18, 2000) (holding
“that the use or absence of punctuation marks, such as hyphens, does not alter
the fact that a name is identical to a mark"); see also Victoria’s
Secret v. Zuccarini, FA 95762 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 18, 2000) (finding
that, by misspelling words and adding letters to words, a respondent does not
create a distinct mark but nevertheless renders the domain name confusingly
similar to the complainant’s marks); see also Daedong-USA, Inc. v. O’Bryan Implement Sales, FA 210302
(Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 29, 2003) (“Respondent's domain name, <kioti.com>,
is identical to Complainant's KIOTI mark because adding a top-level domain name
is irrelevant for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Complainant has alleged that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <manpower-mi.com> domain name. Once Complainant makes a prima facie case in support of its allegations, the burden shifts to Respondent to prove that it does have rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Due to Respondent’s failure to respond to the Complaint, the Panel assumes that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. See G.D. Searle v. Martin Mktg., FA 118277 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 1, 2002) (holding that, where the complainant has asserted that respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests with respect to the domain name, it is incumbent on respondent to come forward with concrete evidence rebutting this assertion because this information is “uniquely within the knowledge and control of the respondent”); see also Clerical Med. Inv. Group Ltd. v. Clericalmedical.com, D2000-1228 (WIPO Nov. 28, 2000) (finding that, under certain circumstances, the mere assertion by the complainant that the respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests is sufficient to shift the burden of proof to the respondent to demonstrate that such a right or legitimate interest does exist).
Respondent has offered no evidence and there is no evidence in the record suggesting that Respondent is commonly known by the <manpower-mi.com> domain name. Thus, Respondent has not established rights or legitimate interests in the <manpower-mi.com> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Compagnie de Saint Gobain v. Com-Union Corp., D2000-0020 (WIPO Mar. 14, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where the respondent was not commonly known by the mark and never applied for a license or permission from the complainant to use the trademarked name); see also Gallup Inc. v. Amish Country Store, FA 96209 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 23, 2001) (finding that the respondent does not have rights in a domain name when the respondent is not known by the mark); see also Broadcom Corp. v. Intellifone Corp., FA 96356 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 5, 2001) (finding no rights or legitimate interests because the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name nor was the respondent using the domain name in connection with a legitimate or fair use).
Moreover, Respondent is using the <manpower-mi.com> domain name to redirect Internet users to an adult-oriented website. Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to divert Internet users to Respondent’s adult-oriented website for profit is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor is it a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Isleworth Land Co. v. Lost In Space, SA, FA 117330 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 27, 2002) (finding that the respondent’s use of its domain name to link unsuspecting Internet traffic to an adult orientated website, containing images of scantily clad women in provocative poses, did not constitute a connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a noncommercial or fair use); see also Target Brands, Inc. v. Bealo Group S.A., FA 128684 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 17, 2002) (finding that use of the <targetstore.net> domain name to redirect Internet users to a pornographic website did not equate to a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of a domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Respondent has registered and used the <manpower-mi.com> domain name in bad faith by using Complainant’s MANPOWER mark to attract Internet users to Respondent’s website for profit. Respondent’s use of the mark in a domain name that resolves to an adult-oriented website suggests that Respondent attempted to capitalize on the goodwill associated with the mark by confusing Internet users as to Complainant’s affiliation with Respondent’s website. Respondent’s actions amount to clear evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Six Continents Hotels, Inc. v. Nowak, D2003-0022 (WIPO Mar. 4, 2003) (“[W]hatever the motivation of Respondent, the diversion of the domain name to a pornographic site is itself certainly consistent with the finding that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith.”); see also Youtv, Inc. v. Alemdar, FA 94243 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 25, 2000) (finding bad faith where the respondent attracted users to his website for commercial gain and linked his website to pornographic websites); see also State Fair of Texas v. Granbury.com, FA 95288 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 12, 2000) (finding bad faith where the respondent registered the domain name <bigtex.net> to infringe on the complainant’s goodwill and attract Internet users to the respondent’s website).
Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <manpower-mi.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Honorable Paul A. Dorf (Ret.), Panelist
Dated: January 12, 2006
National
Arbitration Forum