Teledyne Technologies Incorporated v. Villa Jiang
Claim Number: FA1906001848713
Complainant is Teledyne Technologies Incorporated ("Complainant"), represented by David J. Zoetewey of Teledyne Technologies Incorporated, California, USA. Respondent is Villa Jiang ("Respondent"), USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <teledyine.com>, 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.
David E. Sorkin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on June 19, 2019; the Forum received payment on June 19, 2019.
On June 20, 2019, PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com confirmed by email to the Forum that the <teledyine.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 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 email to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@teledyine.com. Also on June 20, 2019, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the email 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 David E. Sorkin 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 provides products and services relating to deep water oil and gas exploration and production, oceanographic research, environmental monitoring, factory automation, medical imaging, and a variety of other areas, in more than 100 countries. In 2018, Complainant reported total sales in excess of US $2 billion. Complainant and a predecessor in interest have used the TELEDYNE mark in connection with these products and services since at least as early as 1951. Complainant owns numerous longstanding U.S. trademark registrations for TELEDYNE.
Respondent registered the disputed domain name <teledyine.com> in March 2019. Complainant states that the domain name has been used in email messages sent to Complainant's customers, impersonating Complainant and requesting payments from the recipients. The domain name does not resolve to a website. Complainant states that it has never granted Respondent any license or other rights to use its mark, and that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name or any name related to TELEDYNE.
Complainant contends on the above grounds that the disputed domain name <teledyine.com> is confusingly similar to its TELEDYNE mark; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
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 Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, § 4.3 (3d ed. 2017), available at http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (dismissing complaint where complainant failed to "produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations").
The disputed domain name <teledyine.com> corresponds to Complainant's registered TELEDYNE trademark, inserting a letter "I" and appending the ".com" top-level domain. These additions do not substantially diminish the similarity between the domain name and Complainant's mark. See, e.g., Leidos, Inc. v. Richard Sydney, FA 1841622 (Forum June 6, 2019) (finding <leidois.com> confusingly similar to LEIDOS); The Travelers Indemnity Company v. Clarion / The Tech, FA 1706855 (Forum Jan. 19, 2017) (finding <traveilers.com> confusingly similar to TRAVELERS). Accordingly, the Panel considers the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights.
Under the Policy, the Complainant must first make a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and then the burden shifts to the Respondent to come forward with concrete evidence of such rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Productions, Inc. v. Entertainment Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006).
The disputed domain name corresponds to a typographical variation of Complainant's registered mark. Respondent registered the domain name without any authorization from Complainant, and for no reason apparent to the Panel other than the fraudulent use alleged by Complainant.
Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name, and Respondent has failed to come forward with any evidence of such rights or interests. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has sustained its burden of proving that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
Finally, Complainant must show that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Under paragraph 4(b)(i) of the Policy, bad faith may be shown by evidence that a domain name was acquired "primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of [Respondent's] documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name." Under paragraph 4(b)(iv), bad faith may be shown by evidence that "by using the domain name, [Respondent] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [Respondent's] 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 [Respondent's] web site or location or of a product or service on [Respondent's] web site or location." The factors set forth in paragraph 4(b) are not exhaustive; the totality of the circumstances must be considered in the assessment of bad faith.
Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name has been used in connection with a fraudulent email scheme, but provides no evidence to support this assertion -- no affidavits; no copies of email messages demonstrating or complaining of the alleged scheme (redacted or otherwise); no identification of the customer who supposedly was targeted or the date on which the alleged activity took place. The Panel therefore disregards Complainant's claim of fraudulent use. See Teledyne Technologies Inc. v. miri Maza, FA 1846141 (Forum July 3, 2019) (declining to consider unsubstantiated allegations by same complainant regarding fraudulent use of <teledyne.icu>). Nonetheless, Respondent's registration of a domain name corresponding to a typographical variation of Complainant's well-known mark, together with the lack of any indication of legitimate use and Respondent's failure to come forward with an explanation, leads the Panel to infer that Respondent registered and is using the domain name in bad faith. See id. The Panel so finds.
Having considered the three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <teledyine.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
David E. Sorkin, Panelist
Dated: July 12, 2019
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page