Plantronics, Inc. v. peng yi / Juan Xi Tong Xun Xi Tong Shang Hai You Xian Gong Si
Claim Number: FA2007001906788
Complainant is Plantronics, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by John C. Cain of Fleckman & McGlynn, PLLC, United States. Respondent is peng yi / Juan Xi Tong Xun Xi Tong Shang Hai You Xian Gong Si (“Respondent”), China.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <polycomchina.cc>, registered with Alibaba Cloud Computing (Beijing) Co., Ltd..
The undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on July 31, 2020; the Forum received payment on July 31, 2020. The Complaint was submitted in both Chinese and English.
On August 3, 2020, Alibaba Cloud Computing (Beijing) Co., Ltd. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <polycomchina.cc> domain name is registered with Alibaba Cloud Computing (Beijing) Co., Ltd. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Alibaba Cloud Computing (Beijing) Co., Ltd. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Alibaba Cloud Computing (Beijing) Co., Ltd. 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 August 4, 2020, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 24, 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@polycomchina.cc. Also on August 4, 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 August 27, 2020, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Sandra J. Franklin 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
1. Respondent’s <polycomchina.cc> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s POLYCOM mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <polycomchina.cc> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and uses the <polycomchina.cc> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Plantronics Inc., offers tele-presence, video, and voice equipment, applications, and services. Complainant holds a registration for the POLYCOM mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 1,783,295, registered July 20, 1993).
Respondent did not submit a response. The Panel may note that the disputed domain name was registered on August 3, 2017, and uses it to feign an affiliation with Complainant to attract Internet users.
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 Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the POLYCOM mark based upon registration with the USPTO. See DIRECTV, LLC v. The Pearline Group, FA 1818749 (Forum Dec. 30, 2018) (“Complainant’s ownership of a USPTO registration for DIRECTV demonstrate its rights in such mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”).
Respondent’s <polycomchina.cc> domain name incorporates Complainant’s POLYCOM mark, and adds the geographic descriptive term “China” and the “.cc” country-code top-level domain (“ccTLD”). These changes do not distinguish the disputed domain name from Complainant’s mark. See Net2phone Inc. v. Netcall SAGL, D2000-0666 (WIPO Sept. 26, 2000) (finding that the respondent’s domain name <net2phone-europe.com> is confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark because “the combination of a geographic term with the mark does not prevent a domain name from being found confusingly similar"); see also CloudFlare, Inc. v. [Registrant], FA 1624251 (Forum Aug. 1, 2015) (holding, “The inclusion of a ccTLD does not alleviate the similarity between a mark and a disputed domain name as per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent’s <polycomchina.cc> domain name confusingly similar to Complainant’s POLYCOM mark.
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Once Complainant makes a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)); see also Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) (“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”).
Complainant argues that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <polycomchina.cc> domain name since Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name. Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant’s POLYCOM mark. The WHOIS information of record lists “Peng Yi / Juan Xi Tong Xun Xi Tong Shang” as the registrant of the disputed domain name. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name, and thus has no rights under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See H-D U.S.A., LLC, v. ilyas Aslan / uok / Domain Admin ContactID 5645550 / FBS INC / Whoisprotection biz, FA 1785313 (Forum June 25, 2018) (“The publicly available WHOIS information identifies Respondent as ‘Ilyas Aslan’ and so there is no prima facie evidence that Respondent might be commonly known by either of the [<harleybot.bid> and <harleybot.com>] domain names.”); see also 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).
Complainant contends that Respondent does not use the <polycomchina.cc> domain for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use and instead uses the domain to pass off an affiliation with Complainant to attract Internet users. The use of a disputed domain name to suggest a relationship with a complainant and purport to sell the complainant’s products is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See 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).”); see also Fadal Engineering, LLC v. DANIEL STRIZICH,INDEPENDENT TECHNOLOGY SERVICE INC, FA 1581942 (Forum Nov. 13, 2014) (finding that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain to sell products related to Complainant without authorization “does not amount to a bona fide offering of goods or services under policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”). Complainant provides screenshots from Respondent’s webpage at <polycomchina.cc> showing that Respondent uses Complainant’s marks and logos and purports to operate in sales associated with Complainant’s business. The Panel finds that this use is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, and thus Respondent has no rights under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Complainant contends that Respondent registered and uses the <polycomchina.cc> domain name in bad faith since Respondent passes off an association with Complainant and purports to sell Complainant’s products. Passing off as a complainant and purporting to sell the complainant’s products and/or services evinces bad faith disruption of business under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and bad faith attraction for commercial gain under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Caterpillar Inc. v. Vine, FA 97097 (Forum June 22, 2001) (“Respondent registered each of the disputed domain names in order to gain customers and to disrupt Complainant's business of authorizing dealers to sell its CATERPILLAR equipment.”); see also Bittrex, Inc. v. Wuxi Yilian LLC, FA 1760517 (Forum December 27, 2017) (finding bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where “Respondent registered and uses the <lbittrex.com> domain name in bad faith by directing Internet users to a website that mimics Complainant’s own website in order to confuse users into believing that Respondent is Complainant, or is otherwise affiliated or associated with Complainant.”). The screenshots provided of Respondent’s webpage largely copies Complainant’s website in order to create confusion as to the relationship between Complainant and Respondent, and purports to sell communications and teleconference goods and services that are similar to those offered by Complainant. The Panel finds that this constitutes bad faith under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv).
Complainant argues that Respondent must have known of Complainant and its rights in the POLYCOM mark since Complainant is well known in its field and Respondent makes substantial use of Complainant’s logos and images on its webpage. The Panel agrees and finds bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Am. Online, Inc. v. Miles, FA 105890 (Forum May 31, 2002) (“Respondent is using the domain name at issue to resolve to a website at which Complainant’s trademarks and logos are prominently displayed. Respondent has done this with full knowledge of Complainant’s business and trademarks. The Panel finds that this conduct is that which is prohibited by Paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.”); see also AutoZone Parts, Inc. v. Ken Belden, FA 1815011 (Forum Dec. 24, 2018) (“Complainant contends that Respondent’s knowledge can be presumed in light of the substantial fame and notoriety of the AUTOZONE mark, as well as the fact that Complainant is the largest retailer in the field. The Panel here finds that Respondent did have actual knowledge of Complainant’s mark, demonstrating bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”).
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <polycomchina.cc> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist
Dated: August 28, 2020
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page