Charter Communications Holding Company, LLC v. Hiroki Nakataki
Claim Number: FA2011001920159
Complainant is Charter Communications Holding Company, LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Lian Ernette of Holland & Hart LLP, Colorado, USA. Respondent is Hiroki Nakataki (“Respondent”), Colombia.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <charter-deals.info>, registered with NameCheap, Inc..
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.
Richard Hill as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on November 10, 2020; the Forum received payment on November 10, 2020.
On November 10, 2020, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <charter-deals.info> domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameCheap, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameCheap, Inc. 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 12, 2020, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of December 2, 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@charter-deals.info. Also on November 12, 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 December 7, 2020, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Richard Hill 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 states that it is a telecommunications company providing services to over 26 million customers in the United States. With 94,000 employees and service in 41 states, Complainant considers itself America’s fastest growing TV, internet, and voice company. Since at least as early as 1994, Complainant has used the CHARTER mark in connection with cable television and related services. Complainant has rights in the CHARTER mark based upon registration in the United States in 2011.
Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its CHARTER mark since it includes mark in its entirety and merely adds the generic term “deals” and the “.info” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”). Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
According to Complainant, Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name because Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and is not authorized or permitted to use Complainant’s mark. Additionally, Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name in connection to a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, the resolving website displays Complainant’s mark and logo, claims that Respondent is an authorized retailer of Complainant, and offers competing services. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith because Respondent uses the disputed domain name falsely to claim association with Complainant and to promote the sale of competing products for commercial gain. Additionally, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the CHARTER mark at the time of domain name registration. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant has rights in the mark CHARTER dating back to at least 2011.
The disputed domain name was registered in 2020.
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark.
The resolving website displays Complainant’s mark and logo, claims that Respondent is an authorized retailer of Complainant, and offers competing services.
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 disputed domain name includes Complainant’s mark in its entirety and merely adds the generic term “deals”, a hyphen, and the “.info” gTLD. Confusing similarity is not sufficiently mitigated by adding generic terms, a hyphen, and a gTLD to a complainant’s mark. 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).); see also Ant Small and Micro Financial Services Group Co., Ltd. v. Ant Fin, FA 1759326 (Forum Jan. 2, 2018) (“Respondent’s <antfinancial-investorrelations.com> Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ANT FINANCIAL mark. It incorporates the mark entirely. It adds a hyphen, the descriptive terms “investor relations,” and the “.com” gTLD, but these additions are insufficient to distinguish the Domain name from complainant’s mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”). Thus, the Panel finds that the <charter-deals.info> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s CHARTER mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Respondent is not authorized or permitted to use Complainant’s and is not commonly known by the disputed domain name: where a response is lacking, WHOIS information can support a finding that a respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. LY Ta, FA 1789106 (Forum June 21, 2018) (concluding a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name where the complainant asserted it did not authorize the respondent to use the mark, and the relevant WHOIS information indicated the respondent is not commonly known by the domain name). Here, the WHOIS information of record lists the registrant as “Hiroki Nakataki”. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
The resolving website displays Complainant’s mark and logo, claims that Respondent is an authorized retailer of Complainant, and offers competing services. Passing off as a complainant is not considered a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of a domain name per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (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).”). Further, using another’s mark to resolve to a website that offers products or services in competition with a Complainant’s business is not using the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See General Motors LLC v. MIKE LEE, FA 1659965 (Forum Mar. 10, 2016) (finding that “use of a domain to sell products and/or services that compete directly with a complainant’s business does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)”). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent does not use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). And the Panel finds that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Respondent (who did not reply to Complainant’s contentions) has not presented any plausible explanation for its use of Complainant’s mark. In accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel shall draw such inferences from Respondent’s failure to reply as it considers appropriate. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent did not have a legitimate use in mind when registering the disputed domain name.
Indeed, as already noted, the resolving website offers competing services. This constitutes bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Asbury Auto Group Inc. v. Tex. Int'l Prop Assocs, FA 958542 (Forum May 29, 2007) (finding that the respondent's use of the disputed domain name to compete with the complainant's business would likely lead to confusion amongst Internet users as to the sponsorship or affiliation of a competing business and was therefore evidence of bad faith and use); see also See Xylem Inc. and Xylem IP Holdings LLC v. YinSi BaoHu YiKaiQi, FA1504001612750 (Forum May 13, 2015) (“The Panel agrees that Respondent’s use of the website to display products similar to Complainant’s, imputes intent to attract Internet users for commercial gain, and finds bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).”). Accordingly, the Panel finds bad faith registration and use per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
Further, also as already noted, the resolving website falsely alleges that Respondent is an authorized retailer of Complainant. This too is evidence of bad faith registration and use. See Charter Communications Holding Company, LLC v. Webdesk Two, FA1808001800636 (Forum Sept. 5, 2018) (finding bad faith in registration of <spectrumpack.com> because “[u]se of a domain name to create a false impression of affiliation with a complainant in order to compete with and disrupt the complainant’s business is behavior indicative of bad faith registration and use per Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv).”). Thus the Panel finds bad faith registration and use on this ground also.
Finally, Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s mark: the resolving website displays Complainant’s mark and logo. While constructive notice is insufficient to demonstrate bad faith, actual knowledge of a complainant’s rights in a mark prior to registration may be evidence of bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Custom Modular Direct LLC v. Custom Modular Homes Inc., FA 1140580 (Forum Apr. 8, 2008) (“There is no place for constructive notice under the Policy.”); see also Orbitz Worldwide, LLC v. Domain Librarian, FA 1535826 (Forum Feb. 6, 2014) (“The Panel notes that although the UDRP does not recognize ‘constructive notice’ as sufficient grounds for finding Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) bad faith, the Panel here finds actual knowledge through the name used for the domain and the use made of it.”); 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). The Panel finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the mark prior to Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name and that this constitutes bad faith under 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 <charter-deals.info> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Richard Hill, Panelist
Dated: December 7, 2020
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page