A one member UDRP panel just awarded the domain name smartrecovery.com to the Complainant; Alcohol & Drug Abuse Self-Help Network, Inc., d/b/a SMART
The domain owner did not submit a formal response.
The complainant owned a trademark on the term dated 1996.
The registration date of the domain name was not discussed by the panel.
Complainant is the owner of the SMART RECOVERY mark that it uses in providing its addiction related programs and services.
Complainant owns the SMART RECOVERY mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 1,946,898 registered Jan. 9, 1996) and with the World Intellectual Property Office (“WIPO”) (Reg. No. 871,516 registered Sept. 19, 2005). See Complainant’s Annex H.
- The <smartrecovery.com> domain name is being used in a way that is confusingly similar to the SMART RECOVERY mark.
- The owners of the disputed domain name have no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the SMART RECOVERY program.
Respondent has been unable to provide proof/documentation of having trademark rights in the disputed domain name.
Respondent has provided Internet users with third-party links to Alcoholics Anonymous, and other for-profit commercial organizations that are not affiliated with Complainant.
Respondent is not making legitimate noncommercial use of the domain name but is clearly attempting to mislead/divert consumers and harm the trademark, as well as individuals seeking the SMART RECOVERY program and services.
Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith and primarily for the purposes of intentionally attempting to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark.
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. ”
“Complainant claims that it is the owner for the SMART RECOVERY mark that it uses in providing its addiction-related programs and services. ”
“Complainant also notes that it owns the SMART RECOVERY mark with the USPTO (Reg. No. 1,946,898 registered Jan. 9, 1996) and with the WIPO (Reg. No. 871,516 registered Sept. 19, 2005).
Further, Complainant asserts that the <smartrecovery.com> domain name is being used in a way that is confusingly similar to the SMART RECOVERY mark.
Complainant argues that the owners of the disputed domain name have no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the SMART RECOVERY program.
Complainant also asserts that Respondent has been unable to provide proof/documentation of having trademark rights in the disputed domain name.
The Panel notes that the disputed domain name’s WHOIS information provides no support for a contention that Respondent is commonly known by the <smartrecovery.com> domain name as it lists “Fundacion Private Whois / Domain Administrator” as the registrant.
Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
Further, Complainant asserts that Respondent has provided Internet users with third-party links to Alcoholics Anonymous and other for-profit commercial organizations that are not affiliated with Complainant.
Complainant argues that Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial use of the domain name but is clearly attempting to mislead/divert consumers and harm the trademark, as well as individuals seeking the SMART RECOVERY program and services.
The Panel notes that the only evidence that Complainant has provided that shows the use of Respondent’s disputed domain name is a screenshot that is contained in the Complaint document. The Panel finds that Respondent’s resolution of the disputed domain name to a website containing only links to competing and unrelated websites is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy
Complainant asserts that Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith and primarily for the purposes of intentionally attempting to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark.
As noted above, Respondent’s disputed domain name at one time resolved to a website featuring various third-party links to websites that rival that of Complainant’s addiction recovery programs, and those that are wholly unrelated to Complainant’s business and programming.
The Panel determines that such use of the disputed domain name is evidence of bad faith under Policy
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
