text: AutoZone Parts, Inc. v Auto Info Links
  AutoZone Parts, Inc. v. Auto Info Links
  Claim Number: FA0907001274397
  Complainant is AutoZone Parts, Inc. ("Complainant�), represented by Kitty Bina, of Alston & Bird, LLP, Georgia, USA. Respondent is Auto Info Links ("Respondent�), South Korea.
  The domain name at issue is <autozpne.com>, registered with Korea Information Certificate Authority, Inc. d/b/a Domainca.com.
  Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on July 17, 2009; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on August 27, 2009. The Complaint was submitted in both Korean and English.
  On August 25, 2009, Korea Information Certificate Authority, Inc. d/b/a Domainca.com confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <autozpne.com> domain name is registered with Korea Information Certificate Authority, Inc. d/b/a Domainca.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Korea Information Certificate Authority, Inc. d/b/a Domainca.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the Korea Information Certificate Authority, Inc. d/b/a Domainca.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 August 31, 2009, a Korean language Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of September 21, 2009 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@autozpne.com by e-mail.
  On September 25, 2009, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Judge Ralph Yachnin as Panelist.
  Pursuant to Rule 11(a) the Panel determines that the language requirement has been satisfied through the Korean language Complaint and Commencement Notification and, absent a Response, determines that the remainder of the proceedings may be conducted in English.
  1. Respondent's <autozpne.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's AUTOZONE mark.
  2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <autozpne.com> domain name.
  3. Respondent registered and used the <autozpne.com> domain name in bad faith.
  Complainant, AutoZone Parts, Inc., is the owner of the AUTOZONE mark, registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTOâ€�) (e.g., Reg. No. 1,496,638 issued July 19, 1988) and the South Korean Trademark Office ("SKTOâ€�) (Reg. No. 450,013,402 issued August 19, 2005). Complainant is a leading retailer and distributor of automotive replacement parts and accessories, operating more than 4,300 AUTOZONE retail stores as well as a commercial website located at the <autozone.com> domain name.Â
  Respondent, Auto Info Links, registered the <autozpne.com> domain name on August 25, 2007. The disputed domain name resolves to a website featuring click-through links that further resolve to the websites of JC Whitney, Parts Train, Auto Parts Warehouse, and Parts Network, each of which are Complainant's competitors in the automotive parts industry.  Â
  The Panel is satisfied with Complainant's showing of rights in the AUTOZONE mark through its registration of the mark with the USPTO (Reg. No. 1,496,638 issued July 19, 1988) and the SKTO (Reg. No. 450,013,402 issued August 19, 2005).  Respondent, Auto Info Links, registered the <autozpne.com> domain name on August 25, 2007. Thus, the Panel finds that Complainant has established sufficient rights in the AUTOZONE mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Towmaster, Inc. v. Hale, FA 973506 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 4, 2007) (finding that "Complainant's timely registration with the USPTO and subsequent use of the BIG TOW mark establishes rights in the mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).â€�); see also Automotive Racing Products, Inc. v. Linecom, FA 836787 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 21, 2006) (finding that the Complainant's federal trademark registration established its rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)).Â
  Complainant contends that Respondent's <autozpne.com> domain name is confusingly similar to its AUTOZONE mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). The disputed domain name incorporates the distinctive portion of Complainant's AUTOZONE mark with the mere substitution of the letter "pâ€� for the letter "oâ€� and the affixation of the generic top-level domain ".com.â€� The Panel concludes that these alterations fail to sufficiently distinguish the disputed domain name from Complainant's AUTOZONE mark. Thus, the Panel finds that Respondent's <autozpne.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's AUTOZONE mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Internet Movie Database, Inc. v. Temme, FA 449837 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 24, 2005) (finding that a respondent's disputed domain names were confusingly similar to a complainant's mark because the domain names were common misspellings of the mark); see also Jerry Damson, Inc. v. Tex. Int'l Prop. Assocs., FA 916991 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 10, 2007) ("The mere addition of a generic top-level domain ("gTLDâ€�) ".comâ€� does not serve to adequately distinguish the Domain Name from the mark.â€�).Â
  Complainant alleges that Respondent does not have rights to, or legitimate interests in, the <autozpne.com> domain name. Once Complainant makes out a prima facie case in support of its allegations, the burden shifts to Respondent to prove that it does nonetheless have such rights or legitimate interests within the contemplation of Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See Intel Corp. v. Macare, FA 660685 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 26, 2006) (finding that a "complainant must first make a prima facie case that [the] respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and then the burden shifts to [the] respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests.�). The Panel finds that Complainant has made out a sufficient prima facie case in this proceeding. Because of Respondent's failure to respond to the Complaint, the Panel may presume that Respondent does not have rights to or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. See Desotec N.V. v. Jacobi Carbons AB, D2000-1398 (WIPO Dec. 21, 2000) (finding that failing to respond to a complaint made under the Policy allows a presumption that a complainant's allegations are true unless clearly contradicted by the evidence). However, we will examine the record to determine whether there is any basis for concluding that Respondent has rights to or legitimate interests in the <autozpne.com> domain name under the tests set out in Policy ¶ 4(c).
  Respondent's disputed domain name resolves to a website displaying click-through advertisements that further resolve to the websites of Complainant's competitors in the automotive parts industry, including JC Whitney, Parts Train, Auto Parts Warehouse, and Parts Network. The Panel presumes that Respondent is profiting through the generation of click-through fees. Thus, the Panel finds that Respondent is not using the <autozpne.com> domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii), respectively. See Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Power of Choice Holding Co., FA 621292 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 16, 2006) (finding that the respondent's use of domain names confusingly similar to the complainant's WAL-MART mark to divert Internet users seeking the complainant's goods and services to websites competing with the complainant did not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)); see also Royal Bank of Scotland Grp plc et al. v. Demand Domains, FA 714952 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 2, 2006) (finding that the operation of a commercial web directory displaying various links to third-party websites was not a use in connection with 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), as the respondent presumably earned "click-throughâ€� fees for each consumer it redirected to other websites).Â
  Complainant contends that Respondent is not commonly known by the <autozpne.com> domain name and has not been authorized to use its AUTOZONE mark. Moreover, the pertinent WHOIS information identifies the registrant as "Auto Info Links.â€� While this information may indicate a connection between the disputed domain name and Respondent, there is no evidence in the record to substantiate this claim. Thus, the Panel concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Skyline Displays, Inc. v. Hangzhou Skyi Display Equip. Co., FA 187706 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 14, 2003) ("Despite the fact that Respondent lists itself as Hangzhou Skyi Display Equipment Co., Ltd. in its WHOIS contact information, there is no evidence presented to the Panel showing that Respondent is commonly known by the <skyidisplay.com> domain name prior to registering the domain name.â€�); see also AOL LLC v. AIM Profiles, FA 964479 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 20, 2007) (finding that although the respondent listed itself as "AIM Profilesâ€� in the WHOIS contact information, there was no other evidence in the record to suggest that the respondent was actually commonly known by that domain name).Â
  Moreover, Complainant contends that Respondent has engaged in the practice of typosquatting. Respondent is taking advantage of Internet users attempting to reach Complainant but mistakenly misspelling Complainant's AUTOZONE mark by typing the letter "p� instead of the letter "o,� which are adjacent keys on the keyboard. The Panel finds that Respondent's engagement in the practice of typosquatting is evidence that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <autozpne.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See IndyMac Bank F.S.B. v. Ebeyer, FA 175292 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 19, 2003) (finding that a respondent lacked rights and legitimate interests in disputed domain names because it "engaged in the practice of typosquatting by taking advantage of Internet users who attempt to access Complainant's <indymac.com> website but mistakenly misspell Complainant's mark by typing the letter 'x' instead of the letter 'c'�); see also LTD Commodities LLC v. Party Night, Inc., FA 165155 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 14, 2003) (finding that the domain names <ltdcommadities.com>, <ltdcommmodities.com>, and <ltdcommodaties.com> were intentional misspellings of Complainant's LTD COMMODITIES mark and that this "'typosquatting' is evidence that Respondent lacks rights to or legitimate interests in the domain names�).
  Complainant contends that Respondent is using the disputed domain name to attract Internet users to Respondent's website containing commercial links to the websites of Complainant's competitors.  The Panel finds that Respondent's misappropriation of a misspelled version of Complainant's AUTOZONE mark to divert Internet users likely disrupts Complainant's business and thus, constitutes bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See Tesco Pers. Fin. Ltd. v. Domain Mgmt. Servs., FA 877982 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 13, 2007) (concluding that the use of a confusingly similar domain name to attract Internet users to a directory website containing links to the websites of a complainant's commercial competitors represents bad faith registration and use of the domain under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)); see also Persohn v. Lim, FA 874447 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 19, 2007) (finding bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) where a respondent used a disputed domain name to operate a commercial search engine with links to a complainant's business competitors).
  Complainant alleges that Respondent is intentionally attempting to attract unknowing Internet users to Respondent's <autozpne.com> domain name, which was registered on August 25, 2007. The disputed domain name's resolving website contains click-through links that presumably generate revenue for Respondent. The Panel therefore finds that Respondent's intent to capitalize on Internet users' mistypings of Complainant's mark demonstrates bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Associated Newspapers Ltd. v. Domain Manager, FA 201976 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 19, 2003) ("Respondent's prior use of the <mailonsunday.com> domain name is evidence of bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) because the domain name provided links to Complainant's competitors and Respondent presumably commercially benefited from the misleading domain name by receiving 'click-through-fees.'�); see also Kmart v. Khan, FA 127708 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 22, 2002) (finding that if the respondent profits from its diversionary use of the complainant's mark when the domain name resolves to commercial websites and the respondent fails to contest the complaint, it may be concluded that the respondent is using the domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)).
  Complainant further contends that typosquatting is itself evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).  The Panel agrees and finds that Respondent's <autozpne.com> domain name is merely a typosquatted version of Complainant's AUTOZONE mark and thus, Respondent's conduct constitutes bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Bank of Am. Corp. v. Tak Ume domains for sale, FA 154528 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 19, 2003) ("Respondent's registration and use of the disputed domain name demonstrates a practice commonly referred to as 'typosquatting.' This practice diverts Internet users who misspell Complainant's mark to a website apparently owned by Respondent for Respondent's commercial gain. 'Typosquatting' has been recognized as evidencing bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).â€�); see also Nat'l Ass'n of Prof'l Baseball League, Inc. v. Zuccarini, D2002-1011 (WIPO Jan. 21, 2003) ("Typosquatting … is the intentional misspelling of words with [the] 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.â€�).Â
  Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <autozpne.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.