{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-101088", "time_of_filling": "2015-10-20 12:39:24", "domain_names": [ "femco.com" ], "case_administrator": "Lada Válková (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "Femco Holding B.V." ], "complainant_representative": "Bart Van Besien", "respondent": [ "Gregory Ricks" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "The Complainant is a Dutch company, founded in 1983, which owns and uses the FEMCO trademarks identified above.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent registered the disputed domain name (the \"Domain Name\") on March 11, 1996. The Domain Name reverts to a parked domain, containing pay-per-click advertisements.", "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings which are pending or decided and which relate to the disputed domain name.", "no_response_filed": "PARTIES' CONTENTIONS:\r\n\r\nCOMPLAINANT:\r\n\r\n1. The Domain Name is identical (or at least confusingly similar) to the Complainant's trademarks FEMCO as identified above.\r\n\r\n2. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. The Respondent has not acquired trademark rights in connection with the Domain Name. The Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name. The Complainant did not authorize the registration or use of the Domain Name. There is no connection between the Respondent and the Complainant. The Respondent is not making a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the Domain Name. There is no active use of the Domain Name, which is a parking page containing pay-per-click advertisements, benefiting the Respondent, while some of the links are redirecting to sites that are or may be offering products competing with those of the Complainant.\r\n\r\n3. The Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith. There is a combination of factors that prove the Respondent’s bad faith, such as that the Domain Name is offered for sale on a public auction site without any indication of a prior legitimate interest in the Domain Name; the Domain Name is a parking site containing only sponsored links to other sites; Respondent blocks the Complainant from using the Domain Name corresponding to its trademarks and engages in a pattern of such bulk registrations; Respondent does not use the Domain Name actively; Respondent creates a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademarks and deliberately trades off the goodwill of the Complainant; Respondent attempts to conceal its identity; Respondent provided false contact information; there is lack of any evidence of good faith use; Respondent is a domain name grabber.\r\n\r\n4. The Complaint was originally filed against Whois Privacy Corp. of Nassau, Bahamas. The Registrar, however, reported the Respondent being the actual name of the Domain Name’s registrant. Consequently, the Center asked the Complainant to correct the Complaint by including the Respondent as respondent in this matter. The Complainant did file a letter as Nonstandard Communication, claiming that Whois Privacy Corp. was the registrant at the time the Complaint was filed and that it is only after being notified of the Complaint that the Registrar disclosed another owner of the Domain Name. The Complainant notified the Center that it prefers not to change the Respondent’s name in the Complaint as the Complainant filed the Complaint against the Respondent as identified in the WHOIS records and thus met with its obligations under Paragraph 3(b)(v) of the Rules. The Complainant stressed that the proxy service was used by the Respondent with the sole purpose of masking the real owner and identity of the Domain Name holder. Proxy service providers register a domain name on behalf of the registrant and then license the use of the domain name to the registrant. The contact information in the WHOIS directory for domain names registered through proxy services is that of the proxy service provider. Neither the UDRP nor the UDRP Rules deal with the recent phenomenon of privacy proxy services. These Rules do not provide guidance on how to deal with the issues caused by such services.\r\n\r\nRESPONDENT:\r\n1.\tThe Respondent alleged that he registered the Domain Name almost twenty years ago because of the generic nature of the domain name, \"fem\" being an acronym or short for female and \"co\" being short for company, and the short length. \r\n\r\n2.\tThe Respondent only received one correspondence from the Complainant, besides related to this dispute, on June 22, 2011, which was over 15 years after the Respondent registered the Domain Name. The Respondent argues that the Complaint should be rejected because of latches.\r\n\r\n3.\tThe Respondent further asserts that had he searched the US trademark database when he registered the Domain Name on March 11, 1996, he would not have found any trademarks listed for the Complainant, and therefore could not have registered the Domain Name in bad faith. The Complainant does not have a monopoly on the term \"femco\". There are numerous companies named Femco, the oldest dating back to 1958 and in the same type of business as the Complainant.\r\n\r\n4.\tThe Respondent believes that the Complainant tries to pin him on every adverse UDRP decision against Whois Privacy Corp., while they have hundreds if not thousands of customers that use their services. This is akin to all lawsuits against John Doe are against only one person. The Respondent has used Whois Privacy Corp. since his life was threatened on two occasions because of domain names he owned, and didn’t want his home address showing up in WHOIS information.\r\n\r\n5.\tOffering a domain name for sale is not indicative of bad faith usage. The Respondent alleges to have been a domain name investor for twenty years and he has accumulated a few thousand domain names. He determined it would take him a couple of thousand years to develop all these domain names. He is therefore aggressively selling his domain name assets because he would rather not burden his heirs with this task and I would rather they not have to deal with people like the Complainant.", "rights": "The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i)of the Policy).", "no_rights_or_legitimate_interests": "The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the Respondent to have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii)of the Policy).", "bad_faith": "The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown that the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii)of the Policy).", "procedural_factors": "The Panel is satisfied that all procedural requirements under UDRP were met and there is no other reason why it would be inappropriate to provide a decision.", "decision": "Accepted", "panelists": [ "Alfred Meijboom" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2015-12-21 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant is holder of\r\n-\tBenelux trademark FEMCO with registration number 0538851 of July 1, 1994 for goods in classes 6, 7 and 8, including metal bolts, nuts, plugs and pipes; \r\n-\tUS trademark FEMCO with serial number 75548068 of June 27, 2000 for bolts, nuts and plugs of metal; metal pipes in class 6;\r\n-\tCanadian trademark FEMCO with registration number TMA780540 of October 25, 2010 for goods in classes 6 and 7, including metal bolts, nuts, plugs and pipes; and\r\n-\tInternational trademark FEMCO with registration number 1066797 of 22 December 2010 for goods in classes 6, 7 and 8, metal bolts, nuts, plugs and pipes, designating Australia, the People’s republic of China, Switzerland, the European Community, Japan and Norway.", "decision_domains": { "FEMCO.COM": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }