T. Rowe Price Group, Inc. v. Carolina Rodrigues / Fundacion Comercio Electronico
Claim Number: FA1911001872984
Complainant is T. Rowe Price Group, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by David M. Kramer of DLA Piper LLP, United States. Respondent is Carolina Rodrigues / Fundacion Comercio Electronico (“Respondent”), Panama.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <trowepric4e.com> and <trowe3price.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, 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.
The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.) as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on November 25, 2019; the Forum received payment on November 25, 2019.
On November 26, 2019, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <trowepric4e.com>,<trowe3price.com> domain names are registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, 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 November 27, 2019, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of December 17, 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@trowepric4e.com, postmaster@trowe3price.com. Also on November 27, 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 December 19, 2019, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed the Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.) 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.
PRELIMINARY ISSUE: MULTIPLE RESPONDENTS
In the instant proceedings, Complainant has alleged that the entities which control the domain names at issue are effectively controlled by the same person and/or entity, which is operating under several aliases. Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”) provides that a “complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder.”
Complainant contends that both domain names were registered on the same date using the same registrar and the same servers. Additionally, Complainant contends that both domain names are based in Panama with the same ASN and the domain names direct users to identical-looking websites. The Panel finds that Complainant has shown that the listed entities are jointly controlled; so, this matter shall proceed against both entities as Respondent.
Complainant requests that the domain names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant, T. Rowe Price Group Inc., is in the business of providing investment management services. Complainant has rights in the T. ROWE PRICE mark based upon the registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 1,493,517, registered June 21, 1988). Respondent’s <trowepric4e.com> and <trowe3price.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark because they wholly incorporate Complainant’s T. ROWE PRICE mark, simply adding a single number and the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).
Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <trowepric4e.com> and <trowe3price.com> domain names. Respondent has no relationship with Complainant, is not licensed or otherwise permitted to use Complainant’s mark, and is not commonly known by the disputed domain names. Additionally, Respondent does not use the disputed domain names for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent uses the disputed domain names to redirect users to Respondent’s own website where Respondent hosts hyperlinks that compete with Complainant’s business.
Respondent registered and uses the <trowepric4e.com> and <trowe3price.com> domain names in bad faith. Respondent disrupts Complainant’s business and attempts to attract Internet users to its website for commercial gain. Additionally, Respondent engaged in typosquatting. Furthermore, Respondent used a privacy service to conceal its identity. Finally, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s mark when it registered the disputed domain names.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, T. Rowe Price Group Inc., is in the business of providing investment management services. Complainant has rights in the T. ROWE PRICE mark based upon the registration with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 1,493,517, registered June 21, 1988). Respondent’s <trowepric4e.com> and <trowe3price.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s T. ROWE PRICE mark.
Respondent registered the <trowepric4e.com> and <trowe3price.com> domain names on September 11, 2019.
Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <trowepric4e.com> and <trowe3price.com> domain names. Respondent uses the disputed domain names to redirect users to Respondent’s own website where Respondent hosts hyperlinks that compete with Complainant’s business.
Respondent registered and uses the <trowepric4e.com> and <trowe3price.com> domain names 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 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”).
Complainant has rights in the T. ROWE PRICE mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) based upon registration with the USPTO. See BGK Trademark Holdings, LLC & Beyoncé Giselle Knowles-Carter v. Chanphut / Beyonce Shop, FA 1626334 (Forum Aug. 3, 2015) (The Complainant’s registration with the USPTO adequately proves its rights under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)).
Respondent’s <trowepric4e.com> and <trowe3price.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark because they wholly incorporate Complainant’s T. ROWE PRICE mark, simply adding a single number and a gTLD.
Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain names under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use Complainant’s T. ROWE PRICE mark. Where a response is lacking, WHOIS information can support a finding that a respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, especially where a privacy service has been engaged, under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Alaska Air Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines v. Song Bin, FA1408001574905 (Forum Sept. 17, 2014) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name as demonstrated by the WHOIS information and based on the fact that the complainant had not licensed or authorized the respondent to use its ALASKA AIRLINES mark.); see also Kohler Co. v. Privacy Service, FA1505001621573 (Forum July 2, 2015) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) where “Privacy Service” was listed as the registrant of the disputed domain name). Respondent used a privacy service. With the commencement of this proceeding, the privacy service was lifted. As a result, the WHOIS information of record identifies “Carolina Rodrigues” as the registrant. Therefore, Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
Respondent does not use the disputed domain names for a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use and instead uses the domain names to redirect users to a website that hosts hyperlinks that compete with Complainant’s business. See Coachella Music Festival, LLC v. josh greenly / All Access Tickets, FA1507001629217 (Forum Aug. 10, 2015) (finding that the respondent had failed to provide a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name as required under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii), where the respondent was using the disputed domain name to host a web page that featured links to services that competed with those of the complainant).
Respondent registered and uses the <trowepric4e.com> and <trowe3price.com> domain names in bad faith. Specifically, Respondent attempts to disrupt Complainant’s business and attract, for commercial gain, users to the disputed domain names which features click-through advertisements that redirect users to Complainant’s competitors. Respondent’s conduct shows bad faith registration and use per Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv). See Google Inc. v. James Lucas / FireStudio / Jameschee / FIRESTUDIO / SEONG YONG, FA1502001605757 (Forum Apr. 7, 2015) (“This Panel agrees that Respondent’s inclusion of advertisements to likely reap click-through fees is an example of bad faith pursuant Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).”); see also American Council on Education and GED Testing Service LLC v. Anthony Williams, FA1760954 (Forum January 8, 2018) (“Respondent’s hosting of links to Complainant’s competitors demonstrates bad faith registration and use of the <geddiploma.org> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)”).
Respondent engaged in typosquatting. Misspelling of a complainant’s mark to commercially benefit from a confusing similarity between a disputed domain name and the mark shows bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Adorama, Inc. v. Moniker Privacy Services, FA1503001610020 (Forum May 1, 2015) (“Respondent has also engaged in typosquatting, which is additional evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). Respondents who capitalize on common typing errors engage in bad faith registration under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”).
Finally, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s T. ROWE PRICE mark. Therefore, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain names in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Google Inc. v. Ahmed Humood, FA1411001591796 (Forum Jan. 7, 2015) (“This Panel makes that inference; Respondent has actual knowledge of Complainant’s mark at the time of domain name registration based on the fame of Complainant’s GOOGLE mark and Respondent’s use of one of the disputed domain names to detail Internet domain name registration and maintenance services related to and in competition with Complainant.”).
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 <trowepric4e.com> and <trowe3price.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.), Panelist
Dated: January 1, 2020
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page