T-Mobile USA, Inc. dba MetroPCS v. Amy Melrose
Claim Number: FA2002001882303
Complainant is T-Mobile USA, Inc. dba MetroPCS ("Complainant"), represented by Molly Buck Richard of Richard Law Group, Inc., Texas, United States. Respondent is Amy Melrose ("Respondent"), Michigan, United States.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <mymetro-pcs.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.
David E. Sorkin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on February 6, 2020; the Forum received payment on February 6, 2020.
On February 7, 2020, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by email to the Forum that the <mymetro-pcs.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 February 10, 2020, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 2, 2020 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@mymetro-pcs.com. Also on February 10, 2020, 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 March 4, 2020, 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 is one of the largest wireless services providers in the United States, with approximately 79.7 million customers. Complainant operates under two flagship brands, T-Mobile and Metro by T-Mobile; the latter was rebranded from MetroPCS in September 2018. Complainant has used METROPCS in connection with wireless devices and communication services since at least as early as 2002, and continues to use the METROPCS mark during the transition to Metro by T-Mobile. Complainant holds several trademark registrations for METROPCS, in standard character form and otherwise, and contends that the METROPCS mark has become famous as a result of extensive use, advertising, and commercial success.
Respondent registered the disputed domain name <mymetro-pcs.com> via a privacy registration service in February 2020. The domain name is being used for a website that mimics Complainant’s own Metro by T-Mobile website, using a similar format and color scheme and displaying Complainant’s trademarks and corporate name. Respondent’s website contains a login screen that prompts the user to enter a phone number and credit card information. Complainant characterizes Respondent’s website as a phishing scam. Complainant states that Respondent is not commonly known as MetroPCS or any variation thereof, and that Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant, licensed to use its METROPCS mark, or authorized as a vendor, supplier, or distributor of Complainant’s goods or services.
Complainant contends on the above grounds that the disputed domain name <mymetro-pcs.com> is confusingly similar to its METROPCS 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 <mymetro-pcs.com> incorporates Complainant's registered METROPCS trademark, adding the generic term "my," inserting a hyphen, 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., MetroPCS Wireless, Inc. v. Dary Modern, FA 1266795 (Forum July 22, 2009) (finding <metro-pcs-phones.com> confusingly similar to METROPCS); Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. SOLIT, FA 390832 (Forum Feb. 15, 2005) (finding <mymetlife.com> confusingly similar to METLIFE). 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 incorporates Complainant's registered mark without authorization, and it is being used to pass off as Complainant in connection with an apparent fraudulent phishing scheme. Such use does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests under the Policy. See, e.g., T-Mobile USA, Inc. dba MetroPCS v. Maria Rojo, FA 1862089 (Forum Oct. 22, 2019) (finding lack of rights or interests in similar circumstances).
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 ¶ 4(b)(iii) of the Policy, bad faith may be shown by evidence that Respondent registered the disputed domain name "primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor." Under ¶ 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."
Respondent registered a domain name incorporating Complainant’s well-known mark, using a privacy registration service in an effort to conceal her identity, and is using the domain name to pass off as Complainant in connection with an apparent fraudulent phishing scheme. Such conduct is indicative of bad faith registration and use under the Policy. See, e.g., T-Mobile USA, Inc. dba MetroPCS v. Maria Rojo, supra (finding bad faith registration and use where domain name incorporating variation of METROPCS mark was used to pass off as Complainant in order to operate a phishing scheme); T-Mobile USA, Inc. dba MetroPCS v. Diana Romero / Maurice Mujais / Don Thompson / Jan L Baptista, FA 1801511 (Forum Aug. 24, 2018) (finding bad faith registration and use where domain names incorporating METROPCS mark were registered via privacy service and used in furtherance of phishing scheme). The Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith.
Having considered the three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <mymetro-pcs.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
David E. Sorkin, Panelist
Dated: March 7, 2020
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page