Teledyne Technologies Incorporated v. KK Seding
Claim Number: FA1906001848711
Complainant is Teledyne Technologies Incorporated (“Complainant”), represented by David J. Zoetewey of Teledyne Technologies Incorporated, California, USA. Respondent is KK Seding (“Respondent”), Ireland.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <te1edyne.com>, registered with NameCheap, Inc..
The undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on June 19, 2019; the Forum received payment on June 19, 2019.
On June 19, 2019, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <te1edyne.com> domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameCheap, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameCheap, Inc. 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 June 20, 2019, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 10, 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@te1edyne.com. Also on June 20, 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 July 12, 2019, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Sandra J. Franklin 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
1. Respondent’s <te1edyne.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s TELEDYNE mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <te1edyne.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and uses the <te1edyne.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to file a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant provides various services, including deep water oil and gas exploration and production, oceanographic research, air and water quality environmental monitoring, factory automation, and medical imaging. Complainant holds a registration for the TELEDYNE mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 637,429 registered Nov. 20, 1956).
Respondent registered the <te1edyn.com> domain name on January 19, 2019, and it resolves to a blank page.
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 Complainant has rights in the TELEDYNE under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through its registration with the USPTO. See Liberty Global Logistics, LLC v. damilola emmanuel / tovary services limited, FA 1738536 (Forum Aug. 4, 2017) (“Registration of a mark with the USPTO sufficiently establishes the required rights in the mark for purposes of the Policy.”).
Respondent’s <te1edyn.com> domain name simply replaces the letter “l” in Complainant’s TELEDYNE mark with the number “1.” This change does not distinguish a domain name from a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See TripAdvisor, LLC v. Zhong Wan / Wanzhongmedia, FA 1623450 (Forum July 31, 2015) (establishing a confusing similarity between the <tripadviso4.com> domain name and the TRIPADVISOR mark, as the domain name was created by swapping the letter ‘r’ from the mark for the number ‘4’). Respondent also adds addition the generic top-level domain (gTLD) “,com,” which is irrelevant in analyzing the confusing similarity between a mark and disputed domain name. See Dell Inc. v. Protection of Private Person / Privacy Protection, FA 1681432 (Forum Aug. 1, 2016) (“A TLD (whether a gTLD, sTLD or ccTLD) is disregarded under a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis because domain name syntax requires TLDs. Likewise, the absence of spaces must be disregarded under a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis because domain name syntax prohibits them.”). Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent’s <te1edyn.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s TELEDYNE mark.
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Once Complainant makes a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)); see also 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”).
Complainant argues that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <te1edyne.com> domain name, as Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Complainant has never granted Respondent a license or any other rights to use the TELEDYNE mark. The WHOIS information identifies “KK SEDING” as Respondent. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <te1edyne.com> mark under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Emerson Electric Co. v. golden humble / golden globals, FA 1787128 (Forum June 11, 2018) (“lack of evidence in the record to indicate a respondent is authorized to use [the] complainant’s mark may support a finding that [the] respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)”); see also Chevron Intellectual Property LLC v. Fred Wallace, FA1506001626022 (Forum July 27, 2015) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <chevron-europe.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), as the WHOIS information named “Fred Wallace” as registrant of the disputed domain name).
Complainant further contends that Respondent has failed to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Complainant provides the Panel with a screenshot of Respondent’s webpage resolving from the disputed domain name, which shows a blank page. The Panel finds that holding a disputed domain name that resolves to an inactive or blank webpage is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, and thus Respondent has no rights under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See George Weston Bakeries Inc. v. McBroom, FA 933276 (Forum Apr. 25, 2007) (finding that the respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in a domain name under either Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) where it failed to make any active use of the domain name).
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Complainant contends that Respondent registered and used the <te1edyne.com> domain name in bad faith by failing to use it to resolve to an active website. Failure to resolve to an active webpage may be evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See VideoLink, Inc. v. Xantech Corporation, FA1503001608735 (Forum May 12, 2015) (“Failure to actively use a domain name is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”). Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Complainant argues that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the TELEDYNE mark, as the TELEDYNE mark has no meaning other than as an identifier of Complainant and its goods and services. The Panel agrees and finds bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Black Hills Ammunition, Inc. v. Wall, FA1541570 (Forum Mar. 17, 2014) (finding actual knowledge because there was no legitimate reason for Respondent “to register a domain name containing ‘Black Hills Amo’ other than to trade on Complainant’s trademark rights and that ‘Black Hills Amo’ means nothing other than Complainant’s trademark”).
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <te1edyne.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist
Dated: July 14, 2019
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page