T-Mobile USA, Inc. v. Namase Patel / Mumbai Domains
Claim Number: FA1904001841061
Complainant is T-Mobile USA, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by James F. Struthers of Richard Law Group, Inc., Texas, United States. Respondent is Namase Patel / Mumbai Domains (“Respondent”), India.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <mettropcs.com>,<mmetropcs.com>, and <meetropcs.com>, registered with Sea Wasp, LLC.
The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Kenneth L. Port as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on April 29, 2019; the Forum received payment on April 29, 2019.
On May 3, 2019, Sea Wasp, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <mettropcs.com>,<mmetropcs.com>, and <meetropcs.com> domain names are registered with Sea Wasp, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Sea Wasp, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Sea Wasp, LLC registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On May 6, 2019, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of May 28, 2019 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@mettropcs.com, postmaster@mmetropcs.com, postmaster@meetropcs.com. Also on May 6, 2019, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts.
Having received no response from Respondent, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On May 31, 2019, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Kenneth L. Port as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.
Complainant requests that the domain names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant is the third largest wireless services provider in the United States serving approximately 79.7 million customers. Complainant holds numerous registrations for the METROPCS mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (e.g., Reg. 2,792,316, registered December 9, 2003). See Compl. Ex. C. Respondent’s <mettropcs.com>,<mmetropcs.com>, and <meetropcs.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s METROPCS mark as the mark is incorporated in its entirety with either an additional “t”, “m”, or “e” and a “.com” generic top-level domain (gTLD).
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names because Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names. Additionally, Respondent does not use the <mettropcs.com>,<mmetropcs.com>, and <meetropcs.com> domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Instead, the disputed domain name <mettropcs.com> redirects to a competing wireless service provider while the domain names <mmetropcs.com> and <meetropcs.com> resolve to pay-per-click sites that promote competing wireless service provider and other businesses. Further, Respondent offers the disputed domain names for sale at an undisclosed price.
Respondent registered and used the <mettropcs.com>, <mmetropcs.com>, and <meetropcs.com> domain names in bad faith as Respondent disrupts Complainant’s business by promoting competitors. Furthermore, Respondent’s use of the domain names to divert consumers to third-party websites is evidence of bad faith. Respondent also engaged in typo-squatting by intentionally registering domain names that are misspellings of Complainant’s METROPCS mark. Respondent also offers to sell the disputed domain names, which is bad faith. Lastly, Respondent had knowledge of Complainant’s METROPCS mark due to Complainant’s extensive, global use and fame of the mark.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. Respondent registered the disputed domain names on the following dates: <mettropcs.com> (October 4, 2004), <mmetropcs.com> (April 17, 2005), and <meetropcs.com> (April 17, 2005).
The Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark; that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in or to the disputed domain names; and that Respondent has engaged in bad faith use and registration of the disputed domain names.
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "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."
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred:
(1) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
(2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
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(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at ¶ 4.3; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (“Because Complainant did not produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations [. . .] the Panel finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint”).
The Panel finds that the disputed domain names are each confusingly similar to Complainant’s valid and subsisting trademark. Complainant has adequately plead its rights and interests in and to this trademark. Respondent arrives at the disputed domain names by merely adding a “t”, an “m” or an “e” and the g TLD “.com” to Complainant’s precise mark. This is insufficient to distinguish the disputed domain names from Complainant’s trademark.
As such, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark.
The Panel also finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in or to the disputed domain names. Respondent has no right, permission or license to register the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names.
Further, Respondent does not apparently use the disputed domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Instead, the disputed domain name <mettropcs.com> redirects to a competing wireless service provider while the domain names <mmetropcs.com> and <meetropcs.com> resolve to pay-per-click sites that promote competing wireless service provider and other businesses. Further, Respondent appears to offer the disputed domain names for sale at an undisclosed price.
As such, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in or to the disputed domain names.
The Panel also finds that Respondent has engaged in bad faith use and registration of the dispute domain names. Respondent has offered to sell all three of the disputed domain names. Panels have held in the past that a respondent’s general offer to sell a disputed domain name is evidence of bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(i). See Vanguard Trademark Holdings USA LLC v. Wang Liqun, FA1506001625332 (Forum July 17, 2015) (“A respondent’s general offer to sell a disputed domain name for an excess of out-of-pocket costs is evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(i).”). Here, Complainant has provided screenshots that show Respondent’s willingness and availability of the <mettropcs.com>, <mmetropcs.com>, and <meetropcs.com> domain names for sale. See Compl. Ex. G.
As such, the Panel finds that Respondent’s offer to sell the disputed domain names constitutes bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(i).
Respondent apparently registered and used the disputed domain names in bad faith as Respondent’s domain names disrupt Complainant’s business by promoting competitors. Panels have previously held that hosting links and redirecting internet users seeking a complainant to a competitor is evidence of bad faith. See Health Republic Insurance Company v. Above.com Legal, FA1506001622088 (Forum July 10, 2015) (“The use of a domain name’s resolving website to host links to competitors of a complainant shows intent to disrupt that complainant’s business, thereby showing bad faith in use and registration under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).”). Here, Complainant has provided the Panel with screenshots of Respondent’s domain names that redirect to Complainant’s Competitor Verizon Wireless and also has links to Verizon products. See Compl. Exs. E and F.
As such, the Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the domain names to disrupt Complainant’s business is evidence of bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).
Respondent also appears to be engaged in typo-squatting by intentionally registering domain names that are a misspelling of Complainant’s METROPCS mark. Panels have held in the past that registration of a domain name consisting of a slight misspelling of a complainant’s mark constitutes bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Priceline.com, Inc. v. Ryan G Foo / PPA Media Services, FA 135598 (Forum Aug. 18, 2016) (holding that registration of a domain name consisting of a slight misspelling of the complainant’s mark and affiliation of that domain name with the complainant’s affiliate program constituted bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)). Here, Complainant shows that Respondent’s <mettropcs.com>, <mmetropcs.com>, and <meetropcs.com> domain names are all evidence of typosquatting as they add an additional “t”, “m”, or “e” to Complainants METROPCS.
As such, the Panel finds that Respondent’s intentional misspellings and subsequent registration of the disputed domain names is evidence of typosquatting and this constitutes bad faith use and registration per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Lastly, Complainant argues Respondent was well-aware of Complainant’s rights in the METROPCS mark at the time Respondent registered and subsequently used the disputed domain names and this indicates bad faith registration and use. Given Complainant’s extensive, global use and fame of the METROPCS and the totality of the circumstances shows that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s prior rights in and to this trademark mark.
As such, the Panel finds that Respondent has engaged in bad faith use and registration of the disputed domain names.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <mettropcs.com>, <mmetropcs.com>, and <meetropcs.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Kenneth L. Port, Panelist
Dated: June 1, 2019
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page