DECISION

Duane Reade, Inc. v. Duke, Inc a/k/a na

Claim Number:  FA0404000253025

PARTIES

Complainant is Duane Reade, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Hallie Brown, of Lowenstein Sandler P.C., 65 Livingston Avenue, Roseland, NJ 07068.  Respondent is Duke, Inc a/k/a na (“Respondent”), 17 North Chatsworth Avenue, #4D, Larchmont, NY 10538.

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <wwwduanereade.com>, registered with Enom, Inc.

PANEL

The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.

Hon. Ralph Yachnin as Panelist.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the "Forum") electronically on April 13, 2004; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on April 15, 2004.

On April 14, 2004, Enom, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name <wwwduanereade.com> is registered with Enom, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Enom, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Enom, Inc. 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 April 19, 2004, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of May 10, 2004 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@wwwduanereade.com by e-mail.

Having received no Response from Respondent, using the same contact details and methods as were used for the Commencement Notification, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

On May 25, 2004, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Hon. Ralph Yachnin as Panelist.

Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the 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 Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any Response from Respondent.

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A.  Complainant makes the following assertions:

1. Respondent’s <wwwduanereade.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s DUANE READE mark.

2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <wwwduanereade.com> domain name.

3. Respondent registered and used the <wwwduanereade.com> domain name in bad faith.

B.  Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

FINDINGS

Complainant is a drug store chain that provides both over-the-counter and prescription medications and medical products and supplies in retail stores and online.  Complainant markets its goods and services under the DUANE READE mark, which has been used since 1961 and is registered with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”).  Complainant holds several registrations with the USPTO for the DUANE READE mark, including Reg. Nos. 1,092,555 and 1,105,420 (registered on May 30, 1978 and November 7, 1978, respectively).

Respondent registered the <wwwduanereade.com> domain name on August 23, 2003.  Respondent operates a website located at the <healthydrugs.com> domain name that purports to sell and distribute prescription drugs. 

DISCUSSION

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.

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.

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

Complainant has established rights in the DUANE READE 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) (finding that 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 has the burden of refuting this assumption).

Respondent’s <wwwduanereade.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark because the domain name fully incorporates the mark and takes advantage of Internet users who mistakenly omit the period between the prefix “www” and Complainant’s mark.  See Bank of Am. Corp. v. InterMos, FA 95092 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 1, 2000) (finding that Respondent’s domain name <wwwbankofamerica.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant’s registered trademark BANK OF AMERICA because it “takes advantage of a typing error (eliminating the period between the www and the domain name) that users commonly make when searching on the Internet”); see also Marie Claire Album v. Blakely, D2002-1015 (WIPO Dec. 23, 2002) (holding that the letters "www" are not distinct in the "Internet world" and thus Respondent 's <wwwmarieclaire.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's MARIE CLAIRE trademark).

Also, the addition of the generic top-level domain “.com” is irrelevant in determining whether the <wwwduanereade.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark.  See Pomellato S.p.A v. Tonetti, D2000-0493 (WIPO July 7, 2000) (finding <pomellato.com> identical to Complainant’s mark because the generic top-level domain (gTLD) “.com” after the name POMELLATO is not relevant); see also Rollerblade, Inc. v. McCrady, D2000-0429 (WIPO June 25, 2000) (finding that the top level of the domain name such as “.net” or “.com” does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar).

The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied. 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Respondent has failed to contest the allegations of the Complaint; therefore, the Panel presumes that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <wwwduanereade.com> domain name.  See Parfums Christian Dior v. QTR Corp., D2000-0023 (WIPO Mar. 9, 2000) (finding that by not submitting a Response, Respondent has failed to invoke any circumstance which could demonstrate any rights or legitimate interests in the domain name); see also Pavillion Agency, Inc. v. Greenhouse Agency Ltd., D2000-1221 (WIPO Dec. 4, 2000) (finding that Respondents’ failure to respond can be construed as an admission that they have no legitimate interest in the domain names).

Furthermore, nothing in the record establishes that Respondent is commonly known by the <wwwduanereade.com> domain name.  Moreover, Respondent is not licensed or authorized to register or use domain names that incorporate Complainant’s mark.  Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).  See Tercent Inc. v. Yi, FA 139720 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 10, 2003) (stating “nothing in Respondent’s WHOIS information implies that Respondent is ‘commonly known by’ the disputed domain name” as one factor in determining that Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) does not apply); see also Charles Jourdan Holding AG v. AAIM, D2000-0403 (WIPO June 27, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where (1) Respondent is not a licensee of Complainant; (2) Complainant’s prior rights in the domain name precede Respondent’s registration; (3) Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name in question).

Respondent’s <wwwduanereade.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark and resolves to a website that offers goods that compete with those offered by Complainant.  Respondent’s domain name disrupts Complainant’s business and does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).  See Computerized Sec. Sys., Inc. v. Hu, FA 157321 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 23, 2003) (holding that Respondent’s appropriation of Complainant’s mark to market products that compete with Complainant’s goods does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods and services); see also Ameritrade Holdings Corp., Inc. v. Polanski, FA 102715 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 11, 2002) (finding that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to redirect Internet users to a financial services website, which competed with Complainant, was not a bona fide offering of goods or services).

Moreover, Respondent’s use of the <wwwduanereade.com> domain name constitutes typosquatting because it takes advantage of inadvertent typographical errors committed by Internet users who attempt to access Complainant online but instead are directed to websites unrelated to Complainant.  Respondent’s typosquatting is evidence that it lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name.  See Diners Club Int’l Ltd. v. Domain Admin******It's all in the name******, FA 156839 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 23, 2003) (holding that Respondent’s <wwwdinersclub.com> domain name, a typosquatted version of Complainant’s DINERS CLUB mark, was evidence in and of itself that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name vis á vis Complainant); see also RE/MAX Int’l, Inc. v. Seocho, FA 142046 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 25, 2003) (finding that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <wwwremax.com> domain name as it is merely using Complainant’s mark to earn profit from pop-up advertisements).

Furthermore, Respondent’s <wwwduanereade.com> domain name resolves to a website that purports to sell and distribute prescription drugs.  Thus, Respondent is using a domain name confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark for commercial gain, which is further evidence that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name.  See WeddingChannel.com Inc. v. Vasiliev, FA 156716 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 12, 2003) (finding that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to redirect Internet users to websites unrelated to Complainant’s mark, websites where Respondent presumably receives a referral fee for each misdirected Internet user, was not a bona fide offering of goods or services as contemplated by the Policy); see also Black & Decker Corp. v. Clinical Evaluations, FA 112629 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 24, 2002) (holding that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to redirect Internet users to commercial websites, unrelated to Complainant and presumably with the purpose of earning a commission or pay-per-click referral fee, did not evidence rights or legitimate interests in the domain name).

The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied. 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Respondent’s <wwwduanereade.com> domain name resolves to a website that sells goods that compete with those offered by Complainant.  Respondent’s use of the domain name disrupts Complainant’s business and is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).  See S. Exposure v. S. Exposure, Inc., FA 94864 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 18, 2000) (finding Respondent acted in bad faith by attracting Internet users to a website that competes with Complainant’s business); see also EBAY, Inc. v. MEOdesigns, D2000-1368 (Dec. 15, 2000) (finding that Respondent registered and used the domain name <eebay.com> in bad faith where Respondent has used the domain name to promote competing auction sites).

Also, Respondent’s typosquatting constitutes bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).  See Black & Decker Corp. v. Khan, FA 137223 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 3, 2003) (finding the <wwwdewalt.com> domain name was registered to “ensnare those individuals who forget to type the period after the “www” portion of [a] web-address,” evidence that the domain name was registered and used in bad faith); see also Nat’l Ass’n of Prof’l Baseball Leagues v. Zuccarini, D2002-1011 (WIPO Jan. 21, 2003) (“Typosquatting is the intentional misspelling of words with intent to intercept and siphon off traffic from its intended destination, by preying on Internauts who make common typing errors.  Typosquatting is inherently parasitic and of itself evidence of bad faith.”).

Furthermore, Respondent’s <wwwduanereade.com> domain name resolves to a website that sells prescription drugs.  Thus, the Panel finds that Respondent is using a domain name confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark for commercial gain and therefore constitutes bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).  See ESPN, Inc. v. Ballerini, FA 95410 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 15, 2000) (finding bad faith where Respondent linked the domain name to another website <iwin.com>, presumably receiving a portion of the advertising revenue from the site by directing Internet traffic there, thus using a domain name to attract Internet users for commercial gain); see also State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Northway, FA 95464 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 11, 2000) (finding that Respondent registered the domain name <statefarmnews.com> in bad faith because Respondent intended to use Complainant’s marks to attract the public to the web site without permission from Complainant).

The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been satisfied. 

DECISION

Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <wwwduanereade.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

Hon. Ralph Yachnin, Panelist

Justice, Supreme Court, NY (Ret.)

Dated:  June 8, 2004

---

WorldLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/GENDND/2004/786.html