Inteliquent, Inc. v. Muqeet
Claim Number: FA2002001885855
Complainant is Inteliquent, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Daniel Greenberg of Lexsynergy Limited, London, United Kingdom. Respondent is Muqeet (“Respondent”), India.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <inteliquentcommunications.com>, registered with Domainshype.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 February 27, 2020; the Forum received payment on February 27, 2020.
On March 1, 2020, Domainshype.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <inteliquentcommunications.com> domain name is registered with Domainshype.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Domainshype.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Domainshype.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 March 3, 2020, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 23, 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@inteliquentcommunications.com. Also on March 3, 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 March 28, 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 contends as follows:
Complainant, Inteliquent, Inc. provides wholesale voice and messaging services.
Complainant has rights in the INTELIQUENT mark through its registration of the mark with multiple trademark agencies, including the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”), and via other registrations worldwide.
Respondent’s <inteliquentcommunications.com> domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s INTELIQUENT mark as it contains the INTELIQUENT mark in its entirety and merely adds the term “communications” and the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).
Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the <inteliquentcommunications.com> domain name. Complainant has no association with Respondent and has never authorized Respondent’s use of the INTELIQUENT mark. Respondent fails to use the at-issue domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use because Respondent uses the disputed domain name to impersonate Complainant in furtherance of a phishing scheme.
Respondent registered and uses the <inteliquentcommunications.com> domain name in bad faith because Respondent uses the disputed domain name to impersonate Complainant in a fraudulent scheme. Additionally, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the INTELIQUENT mark at the time of registration. Finally, Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name was opportunistic based on timing.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant has rights in the INTELIQUENT mark.
Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and had not been authorized to use Complainant’s trademark in any capacity.
Respondent registered the at‑issue domain name after Complainant acquired rights in the INTELIQUENT trademark.
Respondent uses the <inteliquentcommunications.com> domain name to pass itself off as Complainant to facilitate a phishing scheme via Skype.
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 is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.
Complainant shows that it has a USPTO trademark registration as well as other national trademark registrations for its INTELIQUENT mark. Such registrations are each sufficient to demonstrate Complainant’s rights in the INTELIQUENT mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Fossil Group, Inc. v. wuruima wu, FA 1544486 (Forum Mar. 21, 2014) (holding, “Complainant’s registration of the FOSSIL mark with trademark agencies worldwide, including the USPTO and SAIC, establishes Complainant’s rights in the FOSSIL mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”).
Respondent’s <inteliquentcommunications.com> domain name contains Complainant’s INTELIQUENT trademark followed by the generic term “communications” with all followed by the top-level domain name “.com.” The difference between Respondent’s domain name and Complainant’s trademark is insufficient to distinguish the <inteliquentcommunications.com> domain name from the INTELIQUENT trademark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). In fact the term “communications” is suggestive of Complainant’s business and thus adds to any confusion between Complainant’s trademark and Respondent’s at-issue domain name. Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent’s <inteliquentcommunications.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s INTELIQUENT trademark. See Wiluna Holdings, LLC v. Edna Sherman, FA 1652781 (Forum Jan. 22, 2016) (Finding the addition of a generic term and gTLD is insufficient in distinguishing a disputed domain name from a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).).
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 “Muqeet” and the record before the Panel contains no evidence tending to prove that Respondent is commonly known by the <inteliquentcommunications.com> domain name. The Panel therefore concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by the <inteliquentcommunications.com> domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Suzen Khan / Nancy Jain / Andrew Stanzy, FA 1741129 (Forum Aug. 16, 2017) (finding that respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names when the identifying information provided by WHOIS was unrelated to the domain names or respondent’s use of the same); see also, 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 at-issue 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).
Additionally, Respondent uses its <inteliquentcommunications.com>domain name to impersonate Complainant in furtherance of a phishing scheme. Respondent’s <inteliquentcommunications.com> website displays Complainant’s INTELIQUENT trademark and other intellectual property, adapts the design of Complainant’s official website, and purports to offer services that are offered by Complainant. Respondent’s timing of its fraudulent activity that it is immediately subsequent to Complainant’s organizational changes provides a plausible rational as to why Complainant is doing business under a new website address other than Complainant’s official website. Respondent’s Skype contacts with third party marks additionally bolster the marks’ confidence that they are credibly dealing with Complainant. Having created a foundation for fraud by use of a confusingly similar domain name, bogus website, prevaricating Skype statements, and opportune timing, Respondent is more likely to succeed at passing itself off as Complainant and facilitating fraud. Respondent’s use of the domain name in this manner indicates 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 DaVita Inc. v. Cynthia Rochelo, FA 1738034 (Forum July 20, 2017) (”Passing off in furtherance of a phishing scheme is not considered a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use.”).
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 is being used in bad faith. As discussed below without limitation, there is evidence from which the Panel may conclude that Respondent acted in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
As mentioned above regarding rights and interests, Respondent uses the confusingly similar <inteliquentcommunications.com> domain name to pass itself off as Complainant. Having assumed Complainant’s identity, Respondent is then positioned to use the ruse to facilitate a phishing scheme for commercial gain. Respondent’s use of the domain name in this manner is evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. jaskima smith, FA 1750160 (Forum Oct. 26, 2017) (finding the respondent registered and used the at-issue domain name in bad faith to pass off as the complainant in an attempt to gain personal information from users who mistakenly access the website); see also, Qatalyst Partners LP v. Devimore, FA 1393436 (Forum July 13, 2011) (finding that using the disputed domain name as an e-mail address to pass itself off as the complainant in a phishing scheme is evidence of bad faith registration and use per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)).
Additionally, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the INTELIQUENT mark when it registered <inteliquentcommunications.com> as a domain name. Respondent’s actual knowledge is evident from Respondent’s incorporation of Complainant’s trademark in the at-issue domain name and its website at an opportune time to take advantage of changes in Complainant’s organization, as well as from Respondent’s impersonation of Complainant on Skype. Respondent’s registration and use of a confusingly similar domain name with knowledge of Complainant’s rights in such domain name shows Respondent’s 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); see also, Univision Comm'cns Inc. v. Norte, FA 1000079 (Forum Aug. 16, 2007) (rejecting the respondent's contention that it did not register the disputed domain name in bad faith since the panel found that the respondent had knowledge of the complainant's rights in the UNIVISION mark when registering the disputed domain name).
Finally, Respondent’s timing in registering the <inteliquentcommunications.com> domain name demonstrates opportunistic bad faith since the domain name was registered at a time close to the time Complainant was involved in an acquisition; a time when suppliers would be notified to update contact and payment details and therefore when changes to Complainant’s online presence might be anticipated. See Atlantic Automotive Corp. v. michelle popp, FA 1787763 (Forum June 26, 2018) (“The Panel is of the view that the registration of a domain name in temporal proximity to a merger or acquisition involving Complainant and its associated marks supports a finding of bad faith.”).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <inteliquentcommunications.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist
Dated: March 28, 2020
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page