The Complainant is Kidde IP Holdings, Inc. of Wilmington, Delaware, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Cantor Colburn LLP, United States.
The Respondent is Domain Customer 28253, Whois Protection Service LTD of Sydney, Australia.
The disputed domain name <kiddeaerospace.com> is registered with PSI-USA, Inc. dba Domain Robot (the “Registrar”).
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 28, 2018. On March 29, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On April 4, 2018, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the 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 the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on April 11, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 1, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May 2, 2018.
The Center appointed Christopher J. Pibus as the sole panelist in this matter on May 16, 2018. 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.
The Complainant is a supplier of fire protection products and safety systems for civilian and military aircraft, and ground vehicle operations, including a wide range of products and services within the area of aeronautical fire detection and extinguishing. It has developed advances in the field of detection, suppression, and other fire protection technologies.
The Complainant has rights in a United States Trademark Registration No. 2,108,140 for the trademark WALTER KIDDE AEROSPACE in association with apparatuses, namely, thermistors for detecting excess heat in aircraft; electronic, infrared, ultraviolet and light detectors for detecting smoke and fire in aircraft; fire extinguishers which contain an explosive releasing device and which contain fire suppressing chemicals, for suppressing fires in aircraft. The registration issued on October 28, 1997, and claims a date of first use in commerce as of June 1982.
The Complainant operates a website at “www.kiddetechnologies.com” which promotes and advertises its products and services.
The disputed domain name <kiddeaerospace.com> was created on May 25, 1999. The Registrar indicated to the Center that the “Registration date in our system is 2015-10-12.” At the time the Complaint was filed, the disputed domain name reverted to a website which featured links to products and services of the Complainant and its competitors.
The Complainant submits that it owns a United States trademark registration for the trademark WALTER KIDDE AEROSPACE under Registration No. 2,108,140.
The Complainant further contends that the disputed domain name <kiddeaerospace.com> contains the two main elements of the Complainant’s registered trademark, namely KIDDE and AEROSPACE. The omission of the first name “Walter” does not serve to distinguish the disputed domain name from the Complainant’s registered trademark.
Accordingly, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered WALTER KIDDE AEROSPACE trademark.
The Complainant submits that the Respondent does not have any legitimate rights or interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent is not commonly known by the name “kidde aerospace”, and has never been authorized or licensed by the Complainant. The Complainant further contends that the Respondent has not used the disputed domain name in a bona fide offering of goods and services. The disputed domain name reverts to a website which features links to third parties’ products and services which are in competition with those of the Complainant. It is unrealistic to believe that the Respondent was unaware of the Complainant’s reputation in the Complainant’s trademark and its products and services because the Respondent’s website also provides links to the Complainant’s products and services.
The Complainant submits that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name <kiddeaerospace.com> in bad faith because (i) the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant’s well-known registered trademark rights in WALTER KIDDE AEROSPACE when the Respondent registered the confusingly similar domain name; (ii) the Respondent registered and is using a confusingly similar domain name to trade on the goodwill and reputation of the Complainant’s registered trademark by using the domain name in association with a website that provides links to third parties providing identical products and services of the Complainant, and thereby interfering with the commercial business of the Complainant; and (iii) the Respondent failed to respond to the Complainant’s cease and desist letter dated March 5, 2018.
B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, in order to succeed, the Complainant must establish each of the following elements:
(i) The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;
(ii) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in respect of the disputed domain name; and
(iii) The disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
The Panel finds that the Complainant does have registered trademark rights in the mark WALTER KIDDE AEROSPACE by virtue of its United States Trademark Registration No. 2,108,140, which was registered in 1997.
The test for confusing similarity is summarized at WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.8:
“Where the relevant trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) would not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element.”
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name <kiddeaerospace.com> is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademark WALTER KIDDE AEROSPACE, as the domain name replicates two principal elements of the registered mark. The absence of the term “walter” does not change the analysis of confusing similarity.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirement under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
The Complainant has provided sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent is not commonly known by the name “Kidde Aerospace”, and was clearly never authorized or licensed by the Complainant to use the registered trademark WALTER KIDDE AEROSPACE. The Respondent was likely aware of the Complainant’s rights in the WALTER KIDDE AEROSPACE trademark, when the disputed domain name <kiddeaerospace.com> was registered. The Respondent is using a confusingly similar domain name in association with a website that offers links to third parties which provide identical products and services of those of the Complainant.
WIPO Overview 3.0, Section 2.1 provides:
“…wherein a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interest, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element.”
In the circumstances, the Respondent has failed to meet the burden of production to address the Complainant’s evidence. Accordingly, the Panel is prepared to find that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name <kiddeaerospace.com>.
The Complainant has therefore satisfied the requirements under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.
The Panel is prepared to find, on the evidence filed, that the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant’s registered trademark rights in the mark WALTER KIDDE AEROSPACE when it registered the disputed domain name. The Complainant’s reputation extends back to 1982, and the combination of the elements “kidde” and “aerospace” in the disputed domain name are clearly intended to draw on a connection to the Complainant’s long-established business. The Panel also notes that the disputed domain name reverts to a website that provides links to third parties which promote products and services which are in direct competition of the Complainant’s products and services. The Panel therefore finds that the Respondent registered and uses a confusingly similar domain name to interfere with the Complainant’s business by diverting unsuspecting Internet users away from the Complainant’s website to the Respondent’s website.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirement under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
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 <kiddeaerospace.com> be transferred to the Complainant.
Christopher J. Pibus
Sole Panelist
Date: May 22, 2018