About Intellectual Property IP Training IP Outreach IP for… IP and... IP in... Patent & Technology Information Trademark Information Industrial Design Information Geographical Indication Information Plant Variety Information (UPOV) IP Laws, Treaties & Judgements IP Resources IP Reports Patent Protection Trademark Protection Industrial Design Protection Geographical Indication Protection Plant Variety Protection (UPOV) IP Dispute Resolution IP Office Business Solutions Paying for IP Services Negotiation & Decision-Making Development Cooperation Innovation Support Public-Private Partnerships The Organization Working with WIPO Accountability Patents Trademarks Industrial Designs Geographical Indications Copyright Trade Secrets WIPO Academy Workshops & Seminars World IP Day WIPO Magazine Raising Awareness Case Studies & Success Stories IP News WIPO Awards Business Universities Indigenous Peoples Judiciaries Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions Economics Gender Equality Global Health Climate Change Competition Policy Sustainable Development Goals Enforcement Frontier Technologies Mobile Applications Sports Tourism PATENTSCOPE Patent Analytics International Patent Classification ARDI – Research for Innovation ASPI – Specialized Patent Information Global Brand Database Madrid Monitor Article 6ter Express Database Nice Classification Vienna Classification Global Design Database International Designs Bulletin Hague Express Database Locarno Classification Lisbon Express Database Global Brand Database for GIs PLUTO Plant Variety Database GENIE Database WIPO-Administered Treaties WIPO Lex - IP Laws, Treaties & Judgments WIPO Standards IP Statistics WIPO Pearl (Terminology) WIPO Publications Country IP Profiles WIPO Knowledge Center WIPO Technology Trends Global Innovation Index World Intellectual Property Report PCT – The International Patent System ePCT Budapest – The International Microorganism Deposit System Madrid – The International Trademark System eMadrid Article 6ter (armorial bearings, flags, state emblems) Hague – The International Design System eHague Lisbon – The International System of Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications eLisbon UPOV PRISMA Mediation Arbitration Expert Determination Domain Name Disputes Centralized Access to Search and Examination (CASE) Digital Access Service (DAS) WIPO Pay Current Account at WIPO WIPO Assemblies Standing Committees Calendar of Meetings WIPO Official Documents Development Agenda Technical Assistance IP Training Institutions COVID-19 Support National IP Strategies Policy & Legislative Advice Cooperation Hub Technology and Innovation Support Centers (TISC) Technology Transfer Inventor Assistance Program WIPO GREEN WIPO's Pat-INFORMED Accessible Books Consortium WIPO for Creators WIPO ALERT Member States Observers Director General Activities by Unit External Offices Job Vacancies Procurement Results & Budget Financial Reporting Oversight

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. DomainsbyProxy.com, Inc.

Case No. D2014-1695

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. of Bentonville, Arkansas, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Drinker, Biddle & Reath, LLP, United States of America.

The Respondent is DomainsbyProxy.com, Inc. of Scottsdale, Arizona, United States.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <walmartsuperstores.com> is registered with Name106, Inc. (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 29, 2014. On September 29, 2014, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On September 29, 2014, 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(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on October 9, 2014. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was October 29, 2014. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on October 31, 2014.

The Center appointed William F Hamilton as the sole panelist in this matter on November 20, 2014. 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

The Complainant owns the WALMART mark and many domain names that incorporate the WALMARK mark, including but not limited to <walmart.com>, <walmartsuperstore.com>, and <walmartsupercenter.com>. The Complainant opened the first WALMART branded store in 1962 and has since expanded its business operations to become a world recognized retailer. The Complainant owns numerous trademark registrations throughout the world, including United States registrations for the marks WAL-MART, WAL*MART, and WALMART.COM (collectively, the “Marks”), the first of which was registered in 1985.

The Respondent registered the disputed domain name on March 28, 2014.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered Marks because the disputed domain is composed of the Complainant’s mark plus a generic suffix. Additionally, the Complainant contends the Respondent was never authorized by the Respondent to use the Respondent’s Marks or the disputed domain name and that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Finally, the Complainant contends that the Respondent registered and continues to use the mark in bad faith. In response to a cease and desist letter dated August 25, 2014, the Respondent in email exchanges of August 26 and 27, 2014 indicated that the disputed domain name was for sale and demanded USD1,500 in exchange for it.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s Marks. Domain name jurisprudence long ago established that domain names composed of registered and well-known marks and generic suffixes or prefixes are confusingly similar. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Terry Davies, WIPO Case No. D2006-0031. The Respondent merely added the word “superstores” to the Complainant’s registered and well-know Marks. The Panel finds that disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to the Complainant’s Marks.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant specifically asserts that the Complainant never authorized the Respondent to use the Complainant’s Marks or the disputed domain name. It appears that the Respondent has not conducted any bone fide business under the disputed domain name. The Respondent has failed to come forth with any evidence of legitimate business activity utilizing the Marks or the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the Panel determines that the Respondent lacks any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

It is inconceivable that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name without knowledge the Complainant’s Marks. The Complainant is the largest employer in the United States. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Terry Davies, WIPO Case No. D2006-0031. The disputed domain name originally resolved to a site selling commercial goods. The Panel concludes that the disputed domain name was registered to lure to the Respondent’s website unsuspecting Internet shoppers who had intended to visit a site owned and operated by the Complainant.

The fact that the disputed domain name no longer resolves to an active website is of no significance. The Respondent’s continued registration of the disputed domain name deprives the Complainant of the ability to register and use the disputed domain name to further its legitimate business interests. Moreover, the Complainant must not be compelled to wait for the Respondent to deploy the disputed domain name to the Complainant’s disadvantage. The passive owning of the disputed domain name is actual evidence of the Respondent’s continued bad faith.

Finally, the Respondent’s offer to sell the disputed domain name to the Complainant for a price greater than the registration cost is further evidence of the Respondent’s bad faith.

The Panel concludes that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

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 <walmartsuperstores.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

William F Hamilton
Sole Panelist
Date: December 2, 2014

https://www3.wipo.int/contact/en/area.jsp?area=arbitration https://www.wipo.int/pressroom/en/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/en/disclaim.html https://www.wipo.int/en/web/privacy-policy/ https://www.wipo.int/en/web/accessibility/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/en/sitemap.html https://www3.wipo.int/newsletters/en/ https://www.wipo.int/podcasts/en/ https://www.wipo.int/news/en/