NYP Holdings, Inc. v. Muhammad Imran
Claim Number: FA2011001921435
Complainant is NYP Holdings, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by David M. Kelly of Kelly IP, LLP, United States. Respondent is Muhammad Imran (“Respondent”), Pakistan.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <newyork-post.com>, 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.
Charles A. Kuechenmeister, Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on November 20, 2020; the Forum received payment on November 20, 2020.
On November 20, 2020, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <newyork-post.com> domain name (the 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 23, 2020, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint setting a deadline of December 14, 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@newyork-post.com. Also on November 23, 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 17, 2020, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Charles A. Kuechenmeister 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 distributes news and advertising content through newspapers, newsletters, websites, apps, and social media. It has rights in the NEW YORK POST mark through its registration of that mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”). Respondent’s <newyork-post.com> Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark as it contains the NEW YORK POST mark in its entirety, merely omitting spaces and adding a hyphen and the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. He is not using the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent diverts Internet traffic to a directly competing news website. Further, he is not commonly known by the Domain Name and Complainant has not authorized him to use its NEW YORK POST mark.
Respondent registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith. He is attempting to attract Internet users to his web site for commercial gain by causing confusion as to the source, sponsorship, endorsement or affiliation of that site and disrupts Complainant’s business by offering competing news content. Additionally, Respondent registered the Domain Name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the NEW YORK POST mark.
B. Respondent
On or about December 2, 2020 the FORUM received an email from the Respondent, copied to Complainant’s counsel, reading as follows:
I purchased newyork-post.com after the checking trademark of nypost through https://www3.wipo.int/branddb/en/?fbclid=IwAR3dYjRZ8oLoq4mVoX8D_zzCOKuhQe69iedOUUSyrTs276AKe_9uZo8fv1w , during this time their trademark was inactive. you can also check the history of nypost through this link. cancel registration trademark is mentioned on it.
He also sent copies of two reports from the WIPO IP PORTAL relating to the mark “NYPOST.COM,” one of which shows that mark as having been cancelled in 2016; the other states that it was currently inactive. The text quoted above is the full extent of the communication from Respondent. It clearly does not meet the requirements for a response set forth in Paragraph 5 of the Rules. The Notice of Complaint sent to Respondent by the Forum is very clear that a response must be in accordance with Paragraph 5 of the Rules and provides a direct link to the rules. Moreover, Respondent’s email does not assert facts which if true would be sufficient to defeat Complainant’s claims, as the mark which he says he vetted prior to purchasing the Domain Name, <nypost.com>, is materially distinct from the Domain Name. The Panel does not regard this communication as a Response.
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 a complainant to prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order cancelling or transferring a domain name:
(1) the domain name registered by the respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and
(2) the 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, pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules the Panel will decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations 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. Nevertheless, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. 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”), WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (WIPO Overview 3.0), at ¶ 4.3 (“In cases involving wholly unsupported and conclusory allegations advanced by the complainant, . . . panels may find that—despite a respondent’s default—a complainant has failed to prove its case.”).
The Panel finds as follows with respect to the matters at issue in this proceeding:
The NEW YORK POST mark was registered to New York Post, Inc. with the USPTO (Reg. No. 1,526,818) on February 28, 1989 and was subsequently assigned to Complainant (Complaint Exhibit 7). Complainant’s ownership of a mark registered with the USPTO is sufficient to demonstrate its rights in that mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Target Brands, Inc. v. jennifer beyer, FA 1738027 (Forum July 31, 2017) ("Complainant has rights in its TARGET service mark for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) by virtue of its registration of the mark with a national trademark authority, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO.”).
Respondent’s <newyork-post.com> Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark as it contains the NEW YORK POST mark in its entirety, merely omitting spaces and adding a hyphen and the “.com” gTLD. These changes are not sufficient to distinguish the Domain Name from Complainant’s mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Bond & Co. Jewelers, Inc. v. Tex. Int’l Prop. Assocs., FA 937650 (Forum Apr. 30, 2007) (finding that the elimination of spaces between terms and the addition of a gTLD do not establish distinctiveness from the complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)), Innomed Techs., Inc. v. DRP Servs., FA 221171 (Forum Feb. 18, 2004) (finding that hyphens and top-level domains are irrelevant for purposes of the Policy). The WIPO Overview 3.0, at ¶ 1.7, states that the test for confusing similarity “typically involves a side-by-side comparison of the domain name and the relevant trademark to assess whether the mark is recognizable within the domain name.” Notwithstanding the changes described above, Complainant’s mark is clearly recognizable within the Domain Name.
For the reasons set forth above, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the NEW YORK POST mark, in which Complainant has substantial and demonstrated rights.
If a complainant makes a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), the burden of production shifts to respondent to come forward with evidence that it has rights or legitimate interests in it. 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”). If a respondent fails to come forward with such evidence, the complainant’s prima facie evidence will be sufficient to establish that respondent lacks such rights or legitimate interests. If the respondent does come forward with such evidence, the Panel must assess the evidence in its entirety. At all times, the burden of proof remains on the complainant. WIPO Overview 3.0, at ¶ 2.1.
Policy ¶ 4(c) lists the following three nonexclusive circumstances, any one of which if proven can demonstrate a respondent’s rights or legitimate interests in a domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii):
(i) before any notice to the respondent of the dispute, the respondent has used or has made demonstrable preparations to use the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or
(ii) the respondent (as an individual, business or other organization) has been commonly known by the domain name, even if the respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
(iii) the respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.
Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name because (i) Respondent is not using the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use because the web site resolving from it offers the same content as that offered by Complainant, (ii) Respondent has not been commonly known by the Domain Name, and (iii) Complainant has not authorized or licensed Respondent to use its mark. These allegations are addressed as follows:
Complaint Exhibits 8 and 9 are screenshots of the web site resolving from the Domain Name. While this site does not attempt to mimic or copy the general appearance or layout of Complainant’s web site at <nypost.com> (Complaint Exhibit 3), it does offer news and advertising content, which includes articles alleged by Complainant to have been copied from web sites owned by third parties such as the New York Times and HuffPost. Regardless of the source of Respondent’s articles, there is no doubt that Respondent is competing with Complainant. Using a confusingly similar domain name to offer product or services which compete with those of a complainant is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). General Motors LLC v. MIKE LEE, FA 1659965 (Forum Mar. 10, 2016) (“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).”).
Complainant states that it has never licensed or authorized Respondent to use its mark in any way. Complainant has specific competence to make this statement, and it is unchallenged by any evidence before the Panel. In the absence of evidence that a respondent is authorized to use a complainant’s mark in a domain name or that a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name, the respondent may be presumed to lack rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. IndyMac Bank F.S.B. v. Eshback, FA 830934 (Forum Dec. 7, 2006) (finding that the respondent failed to establish rights and legitimate interests in the <emitmortgage.com> domain name as the respondent was not authorized to register domain names featuring the complainant’s mark and failed to submit evidence that it is commonly known by the domain name), Indeed, Inc. v. Ankit Bhardwaj / Recruiter, FA 1739470 (Forum Aug. 3, 2017) (”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 furnished to the Forum by the registrar lists the registrant of the Domain Name as “Mohammad Imran.” This name bears no resemblance to the Domain Name. Evidence could, of course, in a given case demonstrate that the respondent is commonly known by a domain name different from the name in which it registered the domain name, e.g., the case of a domain name incorporating the brand name of a specific product offered by and associated with the respondent. In the absence of any such evidence, however, and in cases where the respondent has not filed a response, UDRP panels have consistently held that WHOIS evidence of a registrant name which does not correspond with the domain name is sufficient to prove that the respondent is not commonly known by the domain name. 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), 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 disputed 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).
Respondent’s web pages feature the name “New York Post” prominently in the banner at the top of the pages shown, but as discussed above, Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use its mark, and his unauthorized use of that mark on his web site does not entitle him to claim rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name by virtue of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) any more than including the mark in his Domain Name. CyBerCorp Holdings v. Allman (Forum FA0403000244090) (“Naming oneself with another’s trademark does not legitimatize the use of the name in a domain name. Therefore, Respondent cannot claim rights in the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).”), Augusta National, Inc. v. Ryan Carey, FA1711001758547 (Forum December 21, 2017) (“If a respondent could acquire rights and legitimate interests in a domain name through Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) by the simple expedient of incorporating the complainant’s mark into the name of his business entity, the intent and purpose of the Policy would be completely frustrated. Respondent’s appropriation of Complainant’s GREEN JACKET mark for his Domain Name was wrongful, and it was equally wrongful for him to use it in the name of his company.”). The Panel is satisfied that Respondent has not been commonly known by the Domain Name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
Complainant has made its prima facie case. On the evidence presented, and in the absence of any evidence from Respondent, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name.
Policy ¶ 4(b) sets forth a nonexclusive list of four circumstances, any one of which if proven would be evidence of bad faith use and registration of a domain name. They are as follows:
(i) circumstances indicating that the respondent have registered or the respondent has acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant which is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the respondent’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
(ii) the respondent has registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that the respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
(iii) the respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) by using the domain name, the respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the 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 the respondent’s web site or location or of a product of service on the respondent’s web site or location.
The evidence of Respondent’s conduct discussed above in the rights or legitimate interests analysis also supports a finding of bad faith registration and use, based upon one or more of the foregoing grounds articulated in the Policy and upon additional grounds adopted by UDRP panels over the years. First, Respondent is clearly using the Domain Name to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to his web site by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of his web site. This fits squarely within the circumstances described in Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) and is manifest evidence of bad faith registration and use. 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).”).
Complainant alleges that Respondent’s conduct also falls within the circumstances described in Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). That paragraph reads as follows: “you [the respondent] have registered the domain name primarily for the purposes of disrupting the business of a competitor” (emphasis supplied). Respondent is clearly competing with Complainant and by using the Domain Name to attract Internet traffic to his web site, Respondent is clearly disrupting the business of Complainant. The extent of the disruption is compounded by Respondent’s use of the name “New York Post” in large capital letters at the top of his web pages. While Respondent and Complainant are presently competitors, however, there is another aspect of the concept of competition that must be considered. In order for a respondent’s conduct to fall within ¶ 4(b)(iii), the competition must exist before the domain name is registered. Otherwise, the language of ¶ 4(b)(iii), paraphrased as “you registered the domain name primarily to disrupt the business of a competitor,” would not be applicable. The competition must exist before the registration. In this case the Complainant and the Respondent were not competitors when the Domain Name was registered. Any actual competition between them arose only after Respondent registered and began using the Domain Name as he now is. Even then, it is questionable whether disrupting the Complainant’s business was Respondent’s primary purpose in registering the Domain Name. On the contrary, the evidence strongly suggests that Respondent’s primary motive was not so much to harass or burden an existing commercial adversary as it was to trade upon Complainant’s goodwill and reputation by creating confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of his site, which is properly addressed under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). Respondent’s conduct does not fall within the circumstances stated in Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).
That said, using a confusingly similar domain name to attract Internet traffic to a competing web site wrongfully and unfairly disrupts the business of a complainant and is still bad faith. Policy ¶ 4(b) recognizes that mischief can assume many different forms and takes an open-ended approach to bad faith, listing some examples without attempting to enumerate all its varieties. Worldcom Exchange, Inc. v. Wei.com, Inc., WIPO Case No. D-2004-0955 (January 5, 2005), Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Domain Admin - This Domain is For Sale on GoDaddy.com / Trnames Premium Name Services, FA 1714157 (Forum Mar. 8, 2017) (determining that Policy ¶ 4(b) provisions are merely illustrative of bad faith, and that the respondent’s bad faith may be demonstrated by other allegations of bad faith under the totality of the circumstances). The non-exclusive nature of Policy ¶ 4(b) allows for consideration of additional factors in an analysis for bad faith, and using a confusingly similar domain name wrongfully to disrupt the business of a complainant is sufficient to meet the requirements of Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). Respondent’s primary intent in registering and using the Domain Name is less important than the effect of his conduct. Respondent knew or should have known the disruptive impact his conduct would have upon Complainant’s business. Respondent went forward with his plans in spite of that and this demonstrates bad faith independently of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). Red Wing Shoe Company, Inc. v. wei zhang / Magdalena Jennifer / Mu Yan / Carolina Rodrigues / Fundacion Comercio Electronico, FA1911001873163 (Forum January 3, 2020), Psyonix LLC v. Vasya Pupkin, FA2004001894087 (Forum June 3, 2020).
Finally, it is evident that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant and its mark when he registered the Domain Name in September 2020 (Complaint Exhibit 1 shows creation date). Complainant’s NEW YORK POST mark has been used by it in commerce since 1934 (Complaint Exhibit 7) and is well-known in the news media industry (Complaint Exhibit 5). Respondent copied that mark exactly into the Domain Name and is using the name to offer the same types of news and advertising content as Complainant. In light of the non-exclusive nature of Policy ¶ 4(b), actual knowledge of a complainant’s rights in a mark prior to registering an identical or confusingly similar domain name has often been held to be evidence of bad faith registration and use for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). 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).
For the reasons set forth above, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Complainant having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <newyork-post.com> Domain Name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Charles A. Kuechenmeister, Panelist
December 18, 2020
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page