Univision Communications Inc. v. Lisa Katz / Domain Protection LLC
Claim Number: FA2103001935193
Complainant is Univision Communications Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Jorge Arciniega of Loeb & Loeb LLP, California, USA. Respondent is Lisa Katz / Domain Protection LLC (“Respondent”), Texas, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <univision21.com>, registered with Sea Wasp, LLC.
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 March 2, 2021; the Forum received payment on March 2, 2021.
On March 15, 2021, Sea Wasp, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <univision21.com> domain name is registered with Sea Wasp, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Sea Wasp, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Sea Wasp, 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 March 17, 2021, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 6, 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@univision21.com. Also on March 17, 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 April 9, 2021, 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 <univision21.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s UNIVISION mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <univision21.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and uses the <univision21.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent did not file a Response.
Complainant operates the most-watched Spanish-language television network in the U.S. Complainant holds a registration for the UNIVISION mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 1,624,073, registered November 20, 1990).
Respondent registered the <univision21.com> domain name on February 19, 2005, and does not make an active use of the 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”).
The Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the UNIVISION mark through Complainant’s registration of the mark 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 <univision21.com> domain name incorporates the entire UNIVISION mark, and simply adds the number “21” and the gTLD “.com.” The addition of a generic number and a gTLD fails to sufficiently distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Microsoft Corporation v. Thong Tran Thanh, FA 1653187 (Forum Jan. 21, 2016) (determining that confusing similarity exists where [a disputed domain names] contains Complainant’s entire mark and differs only by the addition of a generic or descriptive phrase and top-level domain, the differences between the domain names and its contained trademark are insufficient to differentiate one from the other for the purposes of the Policy). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent’s <univision21.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s UNIVISION 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 names and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests”).
Complainant contends that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, as Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name and Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use the UNIVISION mark. The WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the registrant as “Lisa Katz.” Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and thus has no rights under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Timothy Mays aka Linda Haley aka Edith Barberdi, FA1504001617061 (Forum June 9, 2015) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <amazondevice.org>, <amazondevices.org> and <buyamazondevices.com> domain names under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), as the pertinent WHOIS information identified “Timothy Mays,” “Linda Haley,” and “Edith Barberdi” as registrants of the disputed domain names); see also Bittrex, Inc. v. Operi Manaha, FA 1815225 (Forum Dec. 10, 2018) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <appbittrex.com> domain names where the WHOIS information listed Respondent as “Operi Manaha,” and nothing else in the record suggested Respondent was authorized to use the BITTREX mark.).
Complainant argues that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, as Respondent fails to make any use of the disputed domain name. Maintaining a passive webpage attached to a confusingly similar domain name is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Thermo Electron Corp. v. Xu, FA 713851 (Forum July 12, 2006) (finding that the respondent’s non-use of the disputed domain names demonstrates that the respondent is not using the disputed domain names for 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 demonstrates that the disputed domain name resolves to a passive webpage with no content. The Panel finds that this 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 (iii).
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Complainant contends that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the UNIVISION mark, due to the prominence of the UNIVISION mark. A Respondent’s registration of a domain name using the entirety of a well-known mark can evince bad faith. See Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Fisher, D2000-1412 (WIPO Dec. 18, 2000) (finding that the respondent had actual and constructive knowledge of the complainant’s EXXON mark given the worldwide prominence of the mark and thus the respondent registered the domain names in bad faith). The Panel finds that Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the UNIVISION mark, in bad faith 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 <univision21.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist
Dated: April 12, 2021
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page