A UDRP involving the domain name Vanderhall.com brought the Complainant, Vanderhall Motor Works, against the domain’s Dutch Respondent, Pim van der Hall.
The domain was registered in 2000 by the Respondent, exactly because it’s a match to his last name. In this UDRP, Mr. van der Hall did not respond but the Forum (NAF) panelist was watching his back:
Respondent’s registration of the vanderhall.com domain name predates Complainant’s first claimed rights in the VANDERHALL mark, and thus Complainant cannot prove registration in bad faith […] Here, Respondent registered the Domain Name, which consists of its surname, on June 26, 2000. Complainant first used the VANDERHALL mark on July 2, 2012. Respondent could not have entertained bad faith intentions respecting the VANDERHALL mark because it could not have contemplated Complainant’s then non-existent rights in VANDERHALL mark at the moment the domain name was registered.
It’s quite possible that this would have been a case of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking, if the Respondent had responded via counsel. This, however, was not part of the decision.
Final decision: Deny transfer of the domain Vanderhall.com to the Complainant.
The domain transfer was denied.
Vanderhall Motor Works, Inc. v. Pim van der Hall
Claim Number: FA2305002044419
PARTIES
Complainant is Vanderhall Motor Works, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Scott R. Cleere, Utah, USA. Respondent is Pim van der Hall (“Respondent”), Netherlands.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is vanderhall.com (“Domain Name”), registered with Key-Systems GmbH.
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.
Nicholas J.T. Smith as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on May 12, 2023; Forum received payment on May 12, 2023.
On May 15, 2023, Key-Systems GmbH confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the vanderhall.com domain name is registered with Key-Systems GmbH and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Key-Systems GmbH has verified that Respondent is bound by the Key-Systems GmbH registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On May 15, 2023, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of June 5, 2023 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@vanderhall.com. Also on May 15, 2023, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts.
Having received no response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On June 9, 2023, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Nicholas J.T. Smith as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the “Panel”) finds that 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” through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, 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
Complainant, Vanderhall Motor Works, Inc., manufactures hand-made three-wheeled autocycles for sports driving, touring, commuting, and city driving. Complainant asserts rights to the VANDERHALL mark based upon registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (e.g., Reg. No. 5,056,562, registered on October 4, 2016), and other trademark offices worldwide. Respondent’s vanderhall.com domain name is confusingly similar because it wholly incorporates Complainant’s registered mark, differing only with the addition of the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).
Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the vanderhall.com domain name. Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant’s VANDERHALL mark.
Respondent registered and uses the vanderhall.com domain name in bad faith. The Respondent’s website lacks basic security features and Respondent is engaging in cybersquatting.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
FINDINGS
Complainant having failed to establish bad faith registration and use of the domain name vanderhall.com has not established all required elements of its claim, and thus its complaint must be denied.
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.”
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.
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(f), 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 set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at ¶ 4.3; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (“Because Complainant did not produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations [. . .] the Panel finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint”).
Identical and/or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has rights in the VANDERHALL mark based on registration with the USPTO (e.g Reg. No. 5,056,562, registered on October 4, 2016). Registration of a mark with the USPTO sufficiently confers a complainant’s rights in a mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Target Brands, Inc. v. jennifer beyer, FA 1738027 (Forum July 31, 2017) (“Complainant has rights in its TARGET service mark for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) by virtue of its registration of the mark with a national trademark authority, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”).”).
The Panel finds that the vanderhall.com domain name is identical to Complainant’s VANDERHALL mark as wholly incorporates the VANDERHALL mark and adds the gTLD “.com”. Adding a gTLD to a wholly incorporated trademark does not negate the similarity between a domain name and a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Dell Inc. v. Protection of Private Person / Privacy Protection, FA 1681432 (Forum Aug. 1, 2016) (“A TLD (whether a gTLD, sTLD or ccTLD) is disregarded under a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis because domain name syntax requires TLDs.”).
The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Rights or Legitimate Interests
In light of the Panel’s dispositive finding on the issue of registration and use in bad faith, the Panel declines to address the question of rights or legitimate interests.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
The Panel finds that Complainant has failed to meet its burden of proof of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Tristar Products, Inc. v. Domain Administrator / Telebrands, Corp., FA 1597388 (Forum Feb. 16, 2015) (“Complainant makes conclusory allegations of bad faith but has adduced no specific evidence that warrants a holding that Respondent proceeded in bad faith at the time it registered the disputed domain name. Mere assertions of bad faith, even when made on multiple grounds, do not prove bad faith.”); see also Chris Pearson v. Domain Admin / Automattic, Inc., FA 1613723 (Forum July 3, 2015) (finding that the complainant could not establish the respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith because it failed to present evidence that would support such a holding).
Respondent’s registration of the vanderhall.com domain name predates Complainant’s first claimed rights in the VANDERHALL mark, and thus Complainant cannot prove registration in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii), as the Policy requires a showing of bad faith registration and use. See Platterz v. Andrew Melcher, FA 1729887 (Forum June 19, 2017) (“Whatever the merits of Complainant’s arguments that Respondent is using the Domain Name in bad faith, those arguments are irrelevant, as a complainant must prove both bad faith registration and bad faith use in order to prevail.”); see also Faster Faster, Inc. DBA Alta Motors v. Jeongho Yoon c/o AltaMart, FA 1708272 (Forum Feb. 6, 2017) (“Respondent registered the domain name more than a decade before Complainant introduced the ALTA MOTORS mark in commerce.”) Here, Respondent registered the Domain Name, which consists of its surname, on June 26, 2000. Complainant first used the VANDERHALL mark on July 2, 2012. Respondent could not have entertained bad faith intentions respecting the VANDERHALL mark because it could not have contemplated Complainant’s then non-existent rights in VANDERHALL mark at the moment the domain name was registered.
Therefore, the Panel finds Respondent did not register the Domain Name in bad faith.
DECISION
Having not established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be DENIED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the vanderhall.com domain name REMAIN WITH Respondent.
Nicholas J.T. Smith, Panelist
Dated: June 12, 2023
