Charter Communication Holding Company, LLC v. Faheem Shaikh
Claim Number: FA2001001880528
Complainant is Charter Communication Holding Company, LLC (“Complainant”), represented by CitizenHawk, Inc., California. Respondent is Faheem Shaikh (“Respondent”), Pakistan.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <spectrumretailer.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.
Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on January 24, 2020; the Forum received payment on January 24, 2020.
On January 27, 2020, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <spectrumretailer.com> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. 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 January 28, 2020, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 18, 2020 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@spectrumretailer.com. Also on January 28, 2020, 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 February 21, 2020, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Paul M. DeCicco 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, Charter Communications, is an American telecommunications company.
Complainant has rights in the SPECTRUM AUTHORIZED RETAILER mark based upon its registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”).
Respondent’s <spectrumretailer.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s SPECTRUM AUTHORIZED RETAILER mark, as the domain name incorporates a portion of the mark, omits the work “authorized” and adds generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <spectrumretailer.com> domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name, nor has Complainant authorized or licensed Respondent to use the SPECTRUM AUTHORIZED RETAILER mark in any manner. Respondent’s use of the domain name does not amount to a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, Respondent implies a connection with Complainant by passing off as Complainant.
Respondent registered and is using the <spectrumretailer.com> domain name in bad faith. Respondent disrupts Complainant’s business and attempts to attract, for commercial gain by claiming to be Complainant’s authorized retailer and using the disputed domain name to sell Complainant’s products and services. Further, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the SPECTRUM AUTHORIZED RETAILER mark.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant has trademark rights in SPECTRUM AUTHORIZED RETAILER.
Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and is not authorized to use the SPECTRUM AUTHORIZED RETAILER mark in any capacity.
Respondent registered the at‑issue domain name after Complainant acquired trademark rights in SPECTRUM AUTHORIZED RETAILER.
Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to address a website where Respondent poses as Complainant, or an authorized agent of Complainant, and offers products and services that compete with Complainant.
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 at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.
Complainant’s registration of the SPECTRUM AUTHORIZED RETAILER mark with the USPTO demonstrates Complainant’s rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Haas Automation, Inc. v. Jim Fraser, FA 1627211 (Forum Aug. 4, 2015) (finding that Complainant’s USPTO registrations for the HAAS mark sufficiently demonstrate its rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)).
Furthermore, Respondent’s <spectrumretailer.com> domain name incorporates Complainant’s SPECTRUM AUTHORIZED RETAILER mark less its spaces and central term “AUTHORIZED,” all followed by the top-level domain “.com”. Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) the differences between Respondent’s domain name and Complainant’s trademark do nothing to distinguish one from the other. Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent’s <spectrumretailer.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s SPECTRUM AUTHORIZED RETAILER trademark. See The Pros Closet, Inc. v. Above.com Domain Privacy, FA 1616518 (Forum June 3, 2015) (finding confusing similarity where the <proscloset.com> domain name merely omitted the first term (“the”) from Complainant’s THE PROS CLOSET mark, eliminated spacing between words, and added the “.com” gTLD.)
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. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006). Since Respondent failed to respond, Complainant’s prima facie showing acts conclusively.
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 information for the at-issue domain name identifies the domain name’s registrant as “Faheem Shaikh” and the record before the Panel contains no evidence tending to prove that Respondent is commonly known by the <spectrumretailer.com> domain name. The Panel therefore concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by the <spectrumretailer.com> domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Navistar International Corporation v. N Rahmany, FA1505001620789 (Forum June 8, 2015) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name where the complainant had never authorized the respondent to incorporate its NAVISTAR mark in any domain name registration).
Additionally, Respondent uses its <spectrumretailer.com> the domain name to address a website that displays Complainant’s logo and offers Complainant’s products and services for sale. The website includes a likeness of Complainant’s logo and appears designed to give visitors the false impression that it is affiliated with or authorized by Complainant, when it is not. Respondent’s use of the domain name in this manner suggests neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a non-commercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See 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).”); see also, Ripple Labs Inc. v. NGYEN NGOC PHUONG THAO, FA 1741737 (Forum Aug. 21, 2017) (“Respondent uses the [disputed] domain name to divert Internet users to Respondent’s website… confusing them into believing that some sort of affiliation exists between it and Complainant… [which] is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”).
Given the forgoing, Complainant satisfies its initial burden and conclusively demonstrates Respondent’s lack of rights and lack of interests in respect of the at-issue domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
The at-issue domain name was registered and used in bad faith. As discussed below without limitation, various relevant circumstances lead the Panel to conclude that Respondent acted in bad faith pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
First as mentioned above regarding rights or legitimate interests, Respondent registered and used the confusingly similar domain name to direct internet traffic to Respondent’s <spectrumretailer.com> website where Respondent Respondent’s poses as Complainant and offers competing products and services. Respondent thus passes itself off as Complainant. Such use of the domain name indicates Respondent’s bad faith pursuant Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv). See Ripple Labs Inc. v. Jessie McKoy / Ripple Reserve Fund, FA 1790949 (Forum July 9, 2018) (finding bad faith per Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv) where the respondent used the disputed domain name to resolve to a website upon which the respondent passes off as the complainant and offers online cryptocurrency services in direct competition with the complainant’s business).
Finally, Respondent registered the <spectrumretailer.com> domain name knowing that Complainant had trademark rights in the SPECTRUM AUTHORIZED RETAILER mark. Respondent’s prior knowledge is evident from Respondent’s use of the confusingly similar domain name to offer competing goods and services on a website displaying Complainant’s logo. It is thus clear that Respondent intentionally registered the at-issue domain name to improperly exploit its trademark value, rather than for some benign reason. Respondent’s prior knowledge of Complainant's trademark further indicates that Respondent registered and used the <spectrumretailer.com> domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent had "actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name").
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <spectrumretailer.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist
Dated: February 23, 2020
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page