Charter Communications Holding Company, LLC v. Hostpane Web Hosting / Hostpane.com
Claim Number: FA1904001841062
Complainant is Charter Communications Holding Company, LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Madelon Lapidus of Holland & Hart LLP, Colorado, USA. Respondent is Hostpane Web Hosting / Hostpane.com (“Respondent”), Pakistan.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <charterspectrum-internet.com> (the “Domain Name”), registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com.
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.
Charles A. Kuechenmeister
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on April 29, 2019; the Forum received payment on April 29, 2019.
On May 1, 2019, PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <charterspectrum-internet.com> domain name is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com 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 1, 2019, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint setting a deadline of May 21, 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@charterspectrum-internet.com. Also on May 1, 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 22, 2019, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Charles A. Kuechenmeister 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 Name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant is a telecommunications company providing TV, internet, and voice services to over 26 million customers in the United States. Complainant has rights in the CHARTER (Reg. No. 3,899,216, registered Jan. 4, 2011), CHARTER SPECTRUM (Reg. No. 4,618,726, registered Oct. 7, 2014), and SPECTRUM INTERNET (Reg. No. 5,098,550, registered Dec. 13, 2016) marks through its registration of those marks with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”). Respondent’s Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s marks in that it incorporates Complainant’s CHARTER and SPECTRUM INTERNET marks in their entirety, merely omitting a space between CHARTER and SPECTRUM, adding a hyphen between SPECTRUM and INTERNET, and the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant in any way, nor has Complainant authorized, licensed, or otherwise permitted Respondent to use any of Complainant’s marks. Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name. Respondent is not using the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, it uses the Domain Name to replicate and mimic Complainant’s own website, seeking to pass itself off as Complainant, in violation of U.S. trademark, unfair competition, and consumer deception laws.
Respondent registered and uses the Domain Name in bad faith. Respondent’s use of the Domain Name to pass off as Complainant is intended to trade on Complainant’s famous marks, and is likely to confuse internet users into believing that Respondent’s website is licensed by or affiliated with Complainant, when it is not. Further, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in its marks when it registered the Domain Name.
B. Respondent
Respondent did not submit a Response in this proceeding.
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 provides that in order to obtain an order cancelling or transferring a domain name, Complainant must prove each of the following three elements:
(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, pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules the Panel will decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations 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. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), at ¶ 4.3; 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 as follows with respect to the matters at issue in this proceeding:
The Panel did not find a registration certificate for the SPECTRUM INTERNET mark in Complaint Exhibit 3 or elsewhere in the evidence. Complainant’s allegations as to that mark are not proven. The CHARTER and CHARTER SPECTRUM marks were registered to Complainant with the USPTO, the CHARTER mark (Reg. No. 3,899,216) registered on January 4, 2011, and the CHARTER SPECTRUM mark (Reg. No. 4,618,726) registered on October 7, 2014. Complaint Exhibit 3. Registration of a mark with the USPTO is sufficient to establish a complainant’s rights in that mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Humor Rainbow, Inc. v. James Lee, FA 1626154 (Forum Aug. 11, 2015) (stating, “There exists an overwhelming consensus amongst UDRP panels that USPTO registrations are sufficient in demonstrating a complainant’s rights under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) and its vested interests in a mark. . . . Due to Complainant’s attached USPTO registration on the principal register at Exhibit 1, the Panel agrees that it has sufficiently demonstrated its rights per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”).
Respondent’s Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s marks. It incorporates the CHARTER SPECTRUM mark verbatim, merely omitting the space between those elements terms, and adding a hyphen, the descriptive term “internet” and the gTLD “.com.” These changes are not sufficient to distinguish the Domain Name from Complainant’s CHARTER and CHARTER SPECTRUM marks for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Bid Industrial Holdings (Proprietary) Limited and BFS Group Limited v. Shareef Ghumra / United Foods Group, FA 1784135 (Forum June 8, 2018) (finding the domain name was confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark where “[t]he only difference between the Domain Name and the Complainant’s trademarks is the mere addition of ‘.com’ and placement of a hyphen between the elements of the BIDVEST and 3663 marks.”), The Toronto-Dominion Bank v. George Whitehead, FA 1784412 (Forum June 11, 2018) (“[S]light differences between domain names and registered marks, such as the addition of words that describe the goods or services in connection with the mark and gTLDs, do not distinguish the domain name from the mark incorporated therein per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”), Health Devices Corp. v. Aspen S T C, FA 158254 (Forum July 1, 2003) (“[T]he addition of punctuation marks such as hyphens is irrelevant in the determination of confusing similarity pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”), Trip Network Inc. v. Alviera, FA 914943 (Forum Mar. 27, 2007) (concluding that the affixation of a gTLD to a domain name is irrelevant to a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis).
For the reasons set forth above, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the CHARTER and CHARTER SPECTRUM marks, in which Complainant has substantial and demonstrated rights.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
If a complainant makes a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), the burden of production shifts to the respondent to come forward with evidence that it has rights or legitimate interests in it. Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) (“Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests”). If a respondent fails to come forward with such evidence, the complainant’s prima facie evidence will be sufficient to establish that respondent lacks such rights or legitimate interests. If the respondent does come forward with such evidence, the Panel must assess the evidence in its entirety. At all times, the burden of proof remains on the complainant. WIPO Overview 3.0, at ¶ 2.1.
Policy ¶ 4(c) lists the following three nonexclusive circumstances, any one of which if proven can demonstrate a respondent’s rights or legitimate interests in a domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii):
(i) before any notice to respondent of the dispute, respondent has used or has made demonstrable preparations to use the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or
(ii) respondent (as an individual, business or other organization) has been commonly known by the domain name, even if respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
(iii) respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.
Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name because (i) Respondent is not affiliated or associated with Complainant in any way and Complainant has not authorized or licensed Respondent to use its marks, (ii) Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name, and (iii) Respondent is not using the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or for a legitimate noncommercial or other fair use because the name resolves to a web site which mimics Complainant’s web site and impersonates Complainant. These allegations are supported by competent evidence.
Complainant states that Respondent is not affiliated or associated in any way with Complainant, and that Complainant has never licensed or authorized Respondent to use its marks. Complainant has specific competence to make this statement, and it is unchallenged by any evidence before the Panel. In the absence of evidence that a respondent is authorized to use a complainant’s mark in a domain name or that a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name, the respondent may be presumed to lack rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. IndyMac Bank F.S.B. v. Eshback, FA 830934 (Forum Dec. 7, 2006) (finding that the respondent failed to establish rights and legitimate interests in the <emitmortgage.com> domain name as the respondent was not authorized to register domain names featuring the complainant’s mark and failed to submit evidence that it is commonly known by the domain name), Indeed, Inc. v. Ankit Bhardwaj / Recruiter, FA 1739470 (Forum Aug. 3, 2017) (”Respondent lacks both rights and legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant’s trademark in any capacity and, as discussed below, there are no Policy ¶ 4(c) circumstances from which the Panel might find that Respondent has rights or interests in respect of the at-issue domain name.”).
The WHOIS report submitted as Complaint Exhibit 1 lists the registrant of the Domain Name as “Hostpane Web Hosting.” This name bears no resemblance to the Domain Name. UDRP panels have consistently held that, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, a registrant name that is materially different from the domain name at issue is competent evidence that the respondent is not commonly known by the domain name. Guardair Corporation v. Pablo Palermo, FA1407001571060 (Forum Aug. 28, 2014) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <guardair.com> domain name according to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), as the WHOIS information lists “Pablo Palermo” as registrant of the disputed domain name). The Panel is satisfied that Respondent has not been commonly known by the Domain Name within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
Complaint Exhibit 6 is a screenshot of Complainant’s web site. It prominently displays the SPECTRUM name at the top of the page and offers three bundled packages of TV/internet/voice services under the names TRIPLE PLAY SELECT, TRIPLE PLAY SILVER, and TRIPLE PLAY GOLD. Complaint Exhibit 5 is a screenshot of the web site resolving from the Domain Name. A comparison of the two sites shows that Respondent’s site is a very close copy of Complainant’s. It displays the SPECTRUM name at the top, purports to offer the same service packages under the same names appearing on Complainant’s site, and at the bottom of the page is a footer containing a copyright notice falsely attributing the content to Complainant. The coloring, style and general layout of the two sites is nearly identical. Anyone visiting Respondent’s web site would believe that it was sponsored by, affiliated with or endorsed by Complainant. It is clear that Respondent is using the Domain Name to attempt to pass off as Complainant and at least purport to offer services that compete with Complainant. Using a confusingly similar domain name to pass off as a complainant and offer competing services does not qualify as a bona fide offering of goods or services within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). Vanguard Trademark Holdings USA LLC v. Dan Stanley Saturne, FA 1785085 (Forum June 8, 2018) (“Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name does not amount to a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use” where “Respondent is apparently using the disputed domain name to offer for sale competing services.”), Dell Inc. v. Devesh Tyagi, FA 1785301 (Forum June 2, 2018) (“Respondent replicates Complainant’s website and displays Complainant’s products. The Panel finds that this use is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) & (iii).”).
Complainant has made its prima facie case. On the evidence presented, and in the absence of any evidence from Respondent, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name.
(i) circumstances indicating that you have registered or you have acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant which is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of your documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
(ii) you have registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that you have engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
(iii) you have registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of your web site or location or of a product of service on your web site or location.
The evidence of Respondent’s use of the Domain Name set forth above in the rights or legitimate interests analysis also supports a finding of bad faith use and registration of the Domain Name, based upon the foregoing grounds articulated in the Policy and upon additional grounds adopted by UDRP panels over the years. First, Respondent is using the Domain Name to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its web site by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of its web site. This fits squarely within the circumstances articulated by Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) and is clear evidence of bad faith registration and use. The facts of this case are similar to those in Charter Communications Holding Company, LLC v. Taha Shaikh / Tskdesigners, FA 1814475 (Forum Nov. 25, 2018), where the panel held, “Respondent appears to use a copycat page to solicit the sale of Complainant’s television, Internet, and voice communications services. It is unclear if the Respondent is actually providing Complainant’s services or is gathering personal information from website visitors while not providing any services. In either scenario, the Panel agrees that Respondent is attempting to commercially benefit from the use of Complainant’s SPECTRUM Marks in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv),” citing Charter Communications Holding Company, LLC v. Danish Michael, FA1809001805686 (Forum Oct. 5, 2018) (“Respondent attempts to commercially gain by passing off as Complainant and offering competing goods and services. Use of a domain name to pass off as complainant and offer competing goods and services is evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).”).
Second, it is evident from the notoriety of Complainant’s CHARTER and CHARTER SPECTRUM marks, from Respondent’s copying those marks verbatim into the Domain Name, and from Respondent’s web site mimicking and impersonating Complainant and purporting to offer the same types of services offered by Complainant that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant and its mark when it registered the Domain Name in August 2018. See, Complaint Exhibit 1 for registration date. Policy ¶ 4(b) recognizes that mischief can assume many different forms and takes an open-ended approach to bad faith, listing some examples without attempting to enumerate all its varieties. Worldcom Exchange, Inc. v. Wei.com, Inc., WIPO Case No. D-2004-0955 (January 5, 2005). The non-exclusive nature of Policy ¶ 4(b) allows for consideration of additional factors in an analysis for bad faith, and actual knowledge of a complainant’s rights in a mark prior to registering an identical or confusingly similar domain name has often been held to be evidence of bad faith registration and use for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). Univision Comm'cns Inc. v. Norte, FA 1000079 (Forum Aug. 16, 2007) (rejecting the respondent's contention that it did not register the disputed domain name in bad faith since the panel found that the respondent had knowledge of the complainant's rights in the UNIVISION mark when registering the disputed domain name).
For the reasons set forth above, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Complainant having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <charterspectrum-internet.com> Domain Name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Charles A. Kuechenmeister, Panelist
May 24, 2019
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page