The Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York v. Milen Radumilo
Claim Number: FA2105001944551
Complainant is The Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York (“Complainant”), represented by Eric J. Shimanoff of Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman, P.C., New York, USA. Respondent is Milen Radumilo (“Respondent”), Romania.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <columbia-university.com>, registered with Tucows Domains 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 May 10, 2021; the Forum received payment on May 10, 2021.
On May 11, 2021, Tucows Domains Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <columbia-university.com> domain name is registered with Tucows Domains Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Tucows Domains Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Tucows Domains 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 May 12, 2021, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of June 1, 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@columbia-university.com. Also on May 12, 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 June 4, 2021, 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 operates Columbia University in New York City, one of the most famous and preeminent universities in the world. Founded in 1754 as King’s College, the university was renamed Columbia University in 1896 and since that time continually and consistently has offered and provided educational services of the highest caliber under the COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY mark. Columbia University is organized into sixteen schools, including Columbia College, Columbia Business School (which offers MBAs), the School of Engineering and Applied Science, and the School of General Studies. The university also has global centers in Amman, Beijing, Istanbul, Paris, Mumbai, Rio de Janeiro, Santiago, Asunción and Nairobi. It has affiliations with several other institutions nearby, including Teachers College, Barnard College, Union Theological Seminary and Jewish Theological Seminary, with joint undergraduate programs available through Sciences Po Paris and the Juilliard School. Columbia University is one of the fourteen founding members of the Association of American Universities and was the first school in the United States to grant the M.D. degree. Columbia University annually administers the world-famous Pulitzer Prize. Notable alumni and former students include 5 Founding Fathers of the United States, 9 Justices of the United States Supreme Court, 20 living billionaires, 29 Academy Award winners and 29 heads of state, including three United States Presidents. Additionally, approximately 100 Nobel laureates have been affiliated with Columbia University as students, faculty or staff. Complainant has rights in the COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY mark based upon its registration in the United States in 1989.
Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its COLUMBIA UNIVERSTIY mark because it merely adds a hyphen and the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) to the mark. 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 Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use the COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY mark and Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Additionally, Respondent doesn’t use the disputed domain for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent redirects Internet traffic to web pages that advertise and sell unrelated products and services, and offers the disputed domain name for sale for a price in excess of out-of-pocket costs. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent offers the domain name for sale for a price in excess of registration costs. Additionally, Respondent has displayed a pattern of cybersquatting. Respondent also capitalizes on the goodwill associated with Complainant’s mark for commercial gain. Finally, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the COLUMBIA UNIVERSTIY mark when the disputed domain name was registered. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant owns the mark COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY and uses it to operate a famous university.
Complainant’s rights in its mark dates back to at least1989.
The disputed domain name was registered in 2021.
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark.
The disputed domain name resolves to web pages that advertise and offer for sale unrelated products and services; the disputed domain name is offered for sale for a price in excess of out-of-pocket costs; Respondent has exhibited a pattern of bad faith registration and use.
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 consists of Complainant’s mark, with the addition of a hyphen and the “.com” gTLD. Minor additions to a mark such as punctuation and a gTLD is insufficient to negate confusing similarity between a domain name and the mark it incorporates per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See ADP, LLC. v. Ella Magal, FA 1773958 (Forum Aug. 2, 2017) (“Respondent’s <workforce-now.com> domain name appropriates the dominant portion of Complainant’s ADP WORKFORCE NOW mark and adds a hyphen and the gTLD “.com.” These changes do not sufficiently distinguish the disputed domain name from the ADP WORKFORCE NOW mark.”). Therefore, the Panel finds that the <columbia-university.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY mark. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name: when no response is submitted, WHOIS information can be used to show that a respondent is not commonly known by the domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See 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). Here, the WHOIS information of record identifies the registrant of the disputed domain name as “Milen Radumilo”. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
Respondent uses the disputed domain name to redirect Internet traffic to web pages that advertise and offer unrelated products and services, and offers the disputed domain name for sale for a price in excess of out-of-pocket costs. Use of a disputed domain name for general redirection of Internet traffic is generally not 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). See WeddingChannel.com Inc. v. Vasiliev, FA 156716 (Forum June 12, 2003) (finding that the respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to redirect Internet users to websites unrelated to the complainant’s mark, websites where the respondent presumably receives a referral fee for each misdirected Internet user, was not a bona fide offering of goods or services as contemplated by the Policy). An offer to sell a disputed domain name may further suggest a lack of rights and legitimate interests under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii). See Reese v. Morgan, FA 917029 (Forum Apr. 5, 2007) (finding that the respondent’s willingness to sell a contested domain name for more than its out-of-pocket costs provided additional evidence that Respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in the contested domain name). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(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, Respondent the disputed domain name to redirect Internet traffic to web pages where unrelated products and services are advertised and offered. Use of a disputed domain name to attract Internet users to a webpage for commercial gain is evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Perot Sys. Corp. v. Perot.net, FA 95312 (Forum Aug. 29, 2000) (finding bad faith where the domain name in question is obviously connected with the complainant’s well-known marks, thus creating a likelihood of confusion strictly for commercial gain). Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
Further, Respondent offers the disputed domain name for sale for $2,888, which is a price in excess of out-of-pocket costs. This may evidence bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(i). See Staples, Inc. v. lin yanxiao, FA1505001617686 (Forum June 4, 2015) (“Respondent’s offering to sell the disputed domain name to a third party (in this case, the general public) supports a finding of bad faith registration and use.”); see also Bank of Am. Corp. v. Nw. Free Cmty. Access, FA 180704 (Forum Sept. 30, 2003) (“Respondent's general offer of the disputed domain name registration for sale establishes that the domain name was registered in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(i).”); see also Retail Royalty Company and AE Direct Co LLC v. Whois Foundation / DOMAIN MAY BE FOR SALE, CHECK AFTERNIC.COM Domain Admin, FA 1821246 (Forum Jan. 13, 2019) (“Respondent lists the disputed domain name for sale for $5,759, which is a price well in excess of out of pocket costs. Such an offering can evince bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(i).”). The Panel therefore finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(i).
Finally, Respondent has displayed a pattern of cybersquatting in bad faith: Complainant cites eight cases in which Respondent has been found to violate the UDRP. Evidence of UDRP decisions against a respondent may suggest bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). See NIKE, Inc., and Nike Innovate, C.V. v. Emile Boulanger, FA 1732458 (Forum July 3, 2017) (finding that registration of several infringing domain names in a case satisfies the burden imposed by the Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii)); see also DIRECTV, LLC v. michal restl c/o Dynadot, FA 1788826 (Forum July 5, 2018) (“The record contains evidence of Respondents previous eleven UDRP actions, all of which resulted in the transfer of the domain names, thus establishing bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii).”). Thus, the Panel finds bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <columbia-university.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Richard Hill, Panelist
Dated: June 4, 2021
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page