Infineon Technologies AG v. shaoli ye / yeshaoli
Claim Number: FA2101001930168
Complainant is Infineon Technologies AG (“Complainant”), represented by Gary J. Nelson of Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP, California, USA. Respondent is shaoli ye / yeshaoli (“Respondent”), China.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <infineon-power-rf.com>, registered with Your Domain Casa, 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 January 28, 2021; the Forum received payment on January 28, 2021.
On January 30, 2021, Your Domain Casa, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <infineon-power-rf.com> domain name is registered with Your Domain Casa, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Your Domain Casa, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Your Domain Casa, 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 February 3, 2021, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 23, 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@infineon-power-rf.com. Also on February 3, 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 March 5, 2021, 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 is in the business of manufacturing semiconductors and systems for automotive, industrial, and multimarket sectors.
Complainant has rights in the INFINEON mark through its registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”).
Respondent’s <infineon-power-rf.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s INFINEON mark. Respondent incorporates the mark in its entirety and adds the generic terms “power” and “rf” along with the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).
Respondent lacks rights or legitimate noncommercial or fair use in the <infineon-power-rf.com> domain name as Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name nor did Complainant authorize Respondent to use the INFINEON mark in any way. Respondent also fails to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent’s domain name is used to confuse internet users and resolves to a webpage that shows adult-oriented material.
Respondent registered and used the <infineon-power-rf.com> domain name in bad faith as Respondent attempts to create confusion between itself and Complainant that it is somehow affiliated with Complainant. Respondent’s domain name resolves to a webpage that offers and shows adult-oriented material. Respondent also had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the INFINEON due to the longstanding use of the mark in commerce.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant has trademark rights in INFINEON.
Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and is not authorized to use the INFINEON mark in any capacity.
Respondent registered the at‑issue domain name after Complainant acquired trademark rights in INFINEON.
Respondent holds the <infineon-power-rf.com> domain name to feign affiliation with Complainant and offer pornography.
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 name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.
Complainant has rights in the INFINEON mark through the mark’s registration with the USPTO, as well as through other national registrations of the INFINEON mark. 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 <infineon-power-rf.com> domain name is composed of Complainant’s INFINEON trademark followed by the generic string “-power-rf” with all followed by a paragraph 4 (a)(i) irrelevant generic top-level domain name, “.com”. The differences between Complainant’s trademark and Respondent’s domain name do nothing to distinguish the at-issue domain name from Complainant’s trademark under the Policy. In fact, Respondent’s inclusion of terms that are suggestive of Complainant’s product line in the domain name only adds to any confusion between the trademark and domain name. Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent’s <infineon-power-rf.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s INFINEON trademark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Starbucks Corporation d/b/a Starbucks Coffee Company v. Waseem A Ali / Micron Web Services, FA 1785616 (Forum June 8, 2018) (finding the <starbucksreal.com> domain name to be confusingly similar to the STARBUCKS mark, as “the addition of the generic term ‘real’ to Complainant's mark does not distinguish the Domain Name from Complainant's trade mark pursuant to the Policy.”).
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 “shaoli ye / yeshaoli” and the record before the Panel contains no evidence tending to prove that Respondent is commonly known by the <infineon-power-rf.com> domain name. The Panel therefore concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by the <infineon-power-rf.com> domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Braun Corp. v. Loney, FA 699652 (Forum July 7, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain names where the WHOIS information, as well as all other information in the record, gave no indication that the respondent was commonly known by the domain names, and the complainant had not authorized the respondent to register a domain name containing its registered mark).
Additionally, Respondent uses the confusingly similar <infineon-power-rf.com> domain name to confuse internet users and feign Complainant’s affiliation with the domain name and further to address to a webpage that shows adult-oriented material. Respondent’s use of the at-issue domain name in this manner is indicative of 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 Altria Group, Inc. and Altria Group Distribution Company v. xiazihong, FA1732665 (Forum July 7, 2017) (holding that “[u]se of a domain name to display adult-oriented images is not considered a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under the Policy.”).
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).
Respondent’s <infineon-power-rf.com> domain name was registered and used in bad faith. As discussed below without limitation, circumstance are present which permit the Panel to conclude that Respondent acted in bad faith regarding the at-issue domain name pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
First, Respondent uses the confusingly similar domain name to create confusion between itself and Complainant so as to mislead internet users into believe that Complainant is somehow affiliated with Respondent’s at-issue domain name, when it is not. The domain name further is used to address a website displaying adult-oriented material. Respondent’s use of the domain name in this manner disrupts Complainant’s business and is evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) and (a)(iii). See BBY Solutions, Inc. v. Grant Ritzwoller, FA 1703389 (Forum Dec. 21, 2016) (finding bad faith because the <bestbuyus.com> domain name was obviously connected with the complainant’s well-known BEST BUY mark, thus creating a likelihood of confusion strictly for commercial gain), see also White Oak Entertainment, LLC - DBA The Chateau at White Oak Vineyard v. Al Perkins, FA 1702045 (Forum Dec. 12, 2016) (finding the respondent’s use of the domain name to redirect users to a pornographic website constituted evidence of bad faith).
Additionally, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the INFINEON mark when it registered <infineon-power-rf.com> as a domain name. Respondent’s actual knowledge is evident from the notoriety of Complainant’s INFINEON trademark and from Respondent’s efforts to impersonate Complainant. Respondent’s registration and use of its confusingly similar domain name with prior knowledge of Complainant’s rights in such domain name further 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).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <infineon-power-rf.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist
Dated: March 8, 2021
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page