Dell Inc. v. Domain Administrator / Fundacion Privacy Services LTD
Claim Number: FA2101001929621
Complainant is Dell Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Danae T. Robinson of Pirkey Barber PLLC, Texas, USA. Respondent is Domain Administrator / Fundacion Privacy Services LTD (“Respondent”), Panama.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <delllrefurbished.com>, registered with Media Elite Holdings Limited.
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.
Hon. Karl v. Fink (Ret.) as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on January 25, 2021; the Forum received payment on January 25, 2021.
On January 26, 2021, Media Elite Holdings Limited confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <delllrefurbished.com> domain name is registered with Media Elite Holdings Limited and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Media Elite Holdings Limited has verified that Respondent is bound by the Media Elite Holdings Limited 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 January 27, 2021, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 16, 2021 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@delllrefurbished.com. Also on January 27, 2021, 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 February 18, 2021, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Hon. Karl V. Fink (Ret.) 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 a world leader in computers, computer accessories, and other computer-related products and services. Complainant has rights in the DELL mark through its registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g. Reg. No. 1,860,272, registered Oct. 25, 1994). Respondent’s <delllrefurbished.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s DELL mark. Respondent incorporates the mark in its entirety and adding an additional “L” and generic term “refurbished” along with the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).
Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the <delllrefurbished.com> domain name as Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name nor has Complainant authorized Respondent to use the DELL mark in any way. Respondent fails to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent’s domain name redirects to several domains before reaching Complainant’s legitimate website. Respondent also attempts to distribute malware onto devices.
Respondent registered and used the <delllrefurbished.com> domain name in bad faith as Respondent redirects to several domains before resolving to Complainant’s legitimate website. Respondent also attempts to distribute malware onto devices. Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the DELL mark prior to the registration of the domain name due to the longstanding use of the mark.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
For the reasons set forth below, based upon the allegations and evidence, the Panel finds that Complainant is entitled to the requested relief of transfer of the<delllrefurbished.com> domain name.
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”).
Complainant claims to have rights in the DELL mark through its registration of the mark with the USPTO. Registration of a mark with the USPTO is sufficient to establish rights in a mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Liberty Global Logistics, LLC v. damilola emmanuel / tovary services limited, FA 1738536 (Forum Aug. 4, 2017) (“Registration of a mark with the USPTO sufficiently establishes the required rights in the mark for purposes of the Policy.”). Complainant has provided the Panel with a copy of its USPTO registration for the DELL mark (e.g. Reg. No. 1,860,272, registered Oct. 25, 1994). The Panel finds that Complainant has adequately shown rights in the DELL mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant argues that Respondent’s <delllrefurbished.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s DELL mark. Registration of a domain name that contains a mark in its entirety and adds an additional letter and generic term along with a gTLD does not distinguish the domain name from the mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). 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 Coachella Music Festival, LLC v. Domain Administrator / China Capital Investment Limited, FA 1734230 (Forum July 17, 2017) (“The addition of letters—particularly of those that create a common misspelling—fails to sufficiently distinguish a domain name from a registered mark.”). Complainant argues that Respondent incorporates the mark in its entirety and adding an additional “L” and generic term “refurbished” along with the “.com” gTLD. The Panel finds that Respondent’s domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant DELL mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant has proved this element.
Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), then 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”). The Panel finds that Complainant has made a prima facie case.
Complainant argues Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interest in the <delllrefurbished.com> domain name as Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name nor has Respondent been given license or consent to use the DELL mark or register domain names using Complainant’s mark. Where a response is lacking, WHOIS information may be used to determine whether a respondent is 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). Additionally, lack of authorization to use a complainant’s mark may indicate that the respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. See Emerson Electric Co. v. golden humble / golden globals, FA 1787128 (Forum June 11, 2018) (“lack of evidence in the record to indicate a respondent is authorized to use [the] complainant’s mark may support a finding that [the] respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)”). The WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the registrant as “Domain Administrator / Fundacion Privacy Services LTD” and there is no other evidence to suggest that Respondent was authorized to use the DELL mark or was commonly known by the disputed domain name. The Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
Complainant argues that Respondent fails to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent’s domain name redirects to several domains before reaching Complainant’s legitimate website. Use of a disputed domain to redirect to complainant’s legitimate website is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Better Existence with HIV v. AAA, FA 1363660 (Forum Jan. 25, 2011) (finding that “even though the disputed domain name still resolves to Complainant’s own website, Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name in its own name fails to create any rights or legitimate interests in Respondent associated with the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)”).
Complainant further argues that Respondent also attempts to distribute malware onto devices. Use of a disputed domain name to distribute malware onto internet users devices is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Snap Inc. v. Domain Admin / Whois Privacy Corp., FA 1735300 (Forum July 14, 2017) (“Use of a disputed domain name to offer malicious software does not constitute a bona fide offering or a legitimate use per Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) & (iii).”), see also Ceridian Corp. v. Versata Software, Inc., FA 1259927 (Forum June 23, 2009) (finding that a respondent’s use of a disputed domain name to direct Internet users to a website which attempts to download computer viruses “failed to create any semblance of a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)”). Complainant provided the Panel with screenshots of Respondent’s <delllrefurbished.com> domain name’s resolving webpage that attempts to download malware onto devices.
The Panel finds that Respondent fails to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii) and Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name.
Complainant has proved this element.
Complainant does not make any arguments that fall under Policy ¶ 4(b). However, these arguments are merely illustrative rather than exclusive to support a finding of bad faith. See 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 mere 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.
Complainant argues that Respondent registered and used the <delllrefurbished.com> domain name in bad faith as Respondent redirects to several domains before resolving to Complainant’s legitimate website. Use of a disputed domain name to resolve to complainant’s legitimate webpage may be evidence of bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Verizon Trademark Servs. LLC v. Boyiko, FA 1382148 (Forum May 12, 2011) (“The Panel finds that Respondent’s registration and use of the confusingly similar disputed domain name, even where it resolves to Complainant’s own site, is still registration and use in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”).
Complainant further argues that Respondent also attempts to distribute malware onto devices. Use of a disputed domain name to distribute malware onto internet users’ devices may be evidence of bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See eNom, Incorporated v. Muhammad Enoms General delivery / Enoms.com has been registered just few days after Enom.com, therefore could not have been regstere, FA1505001621663 (Forum July 2, 2015) (“In addition, Respondent has used the disputed domain name to install malware on Internet users’ devices. The Panel finds that this is bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”). Complainant provided the Panel with screenshots of Respondent’s <delllrefurbished.com> domain name’s resolving webpage that attempts to download malware onto devices. This is evidence that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Complainant argues that Respondent had knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the DELL mark at the time of registering the <delllrefurbished.com> domain name. Actual knowledge can adequately demonstrate bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See iFinex Inc. v. xu shuaiwei, FA 1760249 (Forum Jan. 1, 2018) (“Respondent’s prior knowledge is evident from the notoriety of Complainant’s BITFINEX trademark as well as from Respondent’s use of its trademark laden domain name to direct internet traffic to a website which is a direct competitor of Complainant”). To support this assertion, Complainant points to its trademark registrations along with the fact that Respondent impersonates Complainant to further a fraudulent scam. The Panel finds that Respondent did have actual knowledge of Complainant’s right in its mark, and registers and uses the domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Complainant has proved this element.
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 <delllrefurbished.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Hon. Karl V. Fink (Ret.) Panelist
February 24, 2021
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page