WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

CWI, Inc. v. Domain Administrator c/o Dynadot

Case No. D2015-1734

1. The Parties

Complainant is CWI, Inc., Lincolnshire, Illinois, United States of America, represented by Neal & McDevitt, United States of America.

Respondent is Domain Administrator c/o Dynadot, San Mateo, California, United States of America.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The Disputed Domain Name <campingsworld.com> is registered with Dynadot, LLC (the "Registrar").

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on September 30, 2015. On September 30, 2015, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On September 30, 2015, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details.

The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy" or "UDRP"), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules"), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Supplemental Rules").

In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on October 8, 2015. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was October 28, 2015. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent's default on November 3, 2015.

The Center appointed Richard W. Page as the sole panelist in this matter on November 12, 2015. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7.

4. Factual Background

Complainant is a multinational company offering a broad range of products and services in the recreational vehicle and camping industries. Complainant is the owner of several trademarks registrations using the phrase "Camping World" (the "CAMPING WORLD Mark") used in connection with a variety of products and services in the recreation vehicle and camping industries since at least as early as 1968. Complainant also has more than 300 domain names registered incorporating the CAMPING WORLD Mark. Complainant has invested millions of dollars supporting its CAMPING WORLD Mark over many years.

The Disputed Domain Name was registered on September 24, 2014, well after Complainant established rights in the CAMPING WORLD Mark.

5. Parties' Contentions

A. Complainant

Complainant alleges that Respondent is the owner of a registration for the Disputed Domain Name as well as the corresponding website to which the Disputed Domain Name resolves. In addition, Complainant alleges that Respondent's website is a portal that provides hyperlinks to a variety of third party websites that offer recreational vehicle and camping sales and services.

Complainant contends that it is the owner of the CAMPING WORLD Mark and that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar because it incorporates the entirety of Complainant's Mark. Complainant further contends that the only distinction between the CAMPING WORLD Mark and the Disputed Domain Name is the addition of the letter "s" to the Domain Name. Complainant contends that this is not distinctive. Therefore, according to Complainant, the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the CAMPING WORLD Mark.

Complainant asserts that Respondent has acquired no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. Complainant asserts that it has never given Respondent permission to use the CAMPING WORLD Mark, as a licensee or otherwise. Complainant alleges a complete absence of evidence that Respondent has been known by the name "Camping World," or owns any trademarks in the United States of America, or has made demonstrable preparations to use the Disputed Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, or is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Name.

Complainant alleges that Respondent is using the Disputed Domain Name with hypertext links to third parties for the intended purpose of commercial gain and to misleadingly divert consumers from Complainant's website.

Complainant asserts that Respondent has registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith because the actions of Respondent constitute typosquatting and satisfy the elements of the Policy, paragraph 4(b)(iv).

B. Respondent

Respondent did not reply to Complainant's contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs the Panel as to the principles the Panel is to use in determining the dispute: "A Panel shall 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."

A respondent is not obliged to participate in a domain name dispute proceeding, but if it were to fail to do so, asserted facts that are not unreasonable would be taken as true and the respondent would be subject to the inferences that flow naturally from the information provided by the complainant: (see Reuters Limited v. Global Net 2000, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2000-0441.)

Even though Respondent has failed to file a Response or to contest Complainant's assertions, the Panel will review the evidence proffered by Complainant to verify that the essential elements of the claims are met.

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy directs that Complainant must prove each of the following:

i) that the Disputed Domain Name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and,

ii) that Respondent has no legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name; and

iii) that the Disputed Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

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. See, e.g., EAuto, L.L.C. v. Triple S. Auto Parts d/b/a Kung Fu Yea Enterprises, Inc., ICANN Case No. D2000-0047. The Panel finds that Complainant has enforceable rights for the purposes of this proceeding.

Complainant further contends that the Disputed Domain Name is identical with and confusingly similar to the trademark pursuant to the Policy paragraph 4(a)(i). Respondent has not contested the assertions by Complainant that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the CAMPING WORLD Mark.

Numerous UDRP decisions have recognized that incorporating a trademark in its entirety can be sufficient to establish that a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a registered trademark. See, The Nasdaq Stock Market, Inc. v. Green Angel, WIPO Case No. D2001-1010; Kabushki Kaisha Toshiba d/b/a/ Toshiba Corporation v. Distribution Purchasing & Logistics Corp., WIPO Case No. D2000-0464.

The addition of other terms in the disputed domain name does not affect a finding that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the complainant's registered trademark.

The Panel finds that Complainant has shown that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the CAMPING WORLD Mark and satisfied the requirements of the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i).

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant asserts that Respondent has acquired no rights or legitimate interest in the Disputed Domain Name. Complainant asserts Respondent has no permission to use the CAMPING WORLD Mark, has never been commonly known by the name "Camping World," has not made demonstrable preparations to use the Disputed Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, and is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Name.

Paragraph 2.1 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition ("WIPO Overview 2.0") states that once a complainant makes a prima facie case in respect of the lack of rights or legitimate interests of a respondent, the respondent carries the burden of demonstrating it has rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. Where the respondent fails to do so, a complainant is deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

In this proceeding, Complainant has made its prima facie case in respect of lack of rights and legitimate interests and Respondent has not responded. Therefore, Complainant has satisfied the elements of the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(ii).

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Complainant contends that Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith in violation of the Policy paragraph 4(a)(iii). The Policy paragraph 4(b) sets forth four nonexclusive criteria for Complainant to show bad faith registration and use of the Disputed Domain Name. Among those nonexclusive criteria is the Policy, paragraph 4(b)(iv) which states bad faith is present if:

(iv) by using the Disputed Domain Name, you [Respondent] have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your [Respondent's] website or location or of a product

The Panel has previously found that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the CAMPING WORLD Mark. Respondent has not responded to any of Complainant's allegations.

Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant has established the elements of the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(iii).

7. Decision

For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the Disputed Domain Name <campingsworld.com> be transferred to Complainant.

Richard W. Page
Sole Panelist
Date: November 25, 2015