Licensing IP International S.à.r.l. v. dominic name
Claim Number: FA2107001954385
Complainant is Licensing IP International S.à.r.l. (“Complainant”), represented by ROBIC, LLP, Canada. Respondent is dominic name (“Respondent”), Australia.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <pornhub-th.com>, registered with Name.com, 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 July 9, 2021; the Forum received payment on July 9, 2021.
On July 13, 2021, Name.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <pornhub-th.com> domain name is registered with Name.com, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Name.com, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Name.com, 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 July 19, 2021, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 9, 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@pornhub-th.com. Also on July 19, 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 August 13, 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, over the years, and through efforts and acquisitions, it and its corporate affiliates have gained a strong position in the online adult entertainment market, where Internet traffic, including its channeling and control, represents a crucial aspect. One of the keys for Complainant to succeed is its business model. Complainant has contributed to the advent of user-generated adult video portals that aggregate content from a variety of sources, where users can watch, like, share, comment and upload their own videos. Given that several websites operated under Complainant’s brands are free of charge, it causes a very important volume of web traffic (i) to such free of charge websites, as well as (ii) to Complainant’s advertisers and subscription-based websites where the free of charge websites lead to. For instance, as reported in a blog post dated December 11, 2019, entitled “2019 Year in Review”, in respect of Complainant’s flagship brand PORNHUB, in the year 2019 alone (i) 42 billion visits were made to the <pornhub.com> website (which is 8.5 billion more than the previous year); (ii) the average of daily visitors was 115 million (which is 23 million more than the previous year); (iii) more than 39 billion searches were conducted during the year by users worldwide (which is 8.7 billion more than the previous year), which is the equivalent of approximately 80,000 visits, 78,000 searches, and 220,000 video views every minute. Complainant's marks and its <pornhub.com> website have become famous over the years on a worldwide scale and in its sector as shown for example by (i) Alexa global ranking of websites as of February 25, 2017, for various websites associated with trademarks of Complainant including <pornhub.com> at rank #40, (ii) press articles and a Wikipedia article on “PORNHUB”, (iii) a media kit preceded by statistics and a list of the latest press releases and (iv) pictures of a billboard in Times Square in the United States showing an ad to promote the PORNHUB brand resulting from a contest to find a safe-to-watch ad. With a workforce of more than 1,000 full-time employees in one of its 6 offices worldwide, Complainant is positioned as a leader in web design, IT, web development and search engine optimization (“SEO”) (focused on the adult entertainment market) and seeks, as its mission, to “deliver a world-class portfolio of entertainment experiences and IT solutions to a global customer base, utilizing [its] expertise to drive innovation and build new solutions exceeding customer expectations”. Complainant has maintained registration in the PORNHUB mark with numerous authorities around the world including in the European Union, United Kingdom, and United States since 2012.
Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its PORNHUB mark and it contains the mark in its entirety and merely adds a hyphen, the geographic acronym “th” for Thailand, and the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”). Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
According to Complainant, Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name as Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name nor has Respondent been licensed, authorized, or otherwise permitted by Complainant to use Complainant’s mark. Furthermore, Respondent’s use is not a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, as Respondent is diverting Internet users seeking Complainant to a competing website. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. Specifically, Respondent is attempting to disrupt Complainant’s business by diverting Internet users to a website that may present a false impression of affiliation with Complainant. Furthermore, Respondent is attempting to attract Internet users for commercial gain by diverting Internet users to a competing website. Finally, Respondent had actual or constructive knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the PORNHUB mark at the time of registration. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant owns the mark PORNHUB and uses it to market adult entertainment.
Complainant’s rights in its mark date back to at least 2012.
The disputed domain name was registered in 2018.
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark.
The resolving website offers competing services; it displays Complainant’s mark and a logo that is similar to Complainant’s logo.
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 incorporates Complainant’s mark in its entirety, merely adding a hyphen, the geographic acronym “th” for Thailand, and the “.com” gTLD. Adding a hyphen does not be sufficiently distinguish the disputed domain name from the complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Blizzard Entertainment, Inc. v. XINXIU ZENG / haimin liang, FA 1736365 (Forum July 19, 2017) (finding that the addition of punctuation—specifically, a hyphen—did not sufficiently distinguish the disputed domain name from complainant’s registered mark). Additionally, adding a geographic term and a gTLD may not sufficiently distinguish the disputed domain name from the complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Avaya Inc. v. Evelyn Dayda / Avaya Unlimited Sources LLC, FA 1611255 (Forum May 4, 2015) (finding that as “the ‘usa’ portion of the disputed domain name is a generic geographic term, the internet user will assume that the domain name deals with the activities of Complainant in the USA and that it will lead to a website dealing with that subject. The domain name is therefore confusingly similar to the AVAYA mark and the Panel so finds.”): see also Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association v. Shi Lei aka Shilei, FA 1784643 (Forum June 18, 2018) (“A TLD (whether a gTLD, sTLD or ccTLD) is disregarded under a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis because domain name syntax requires TLDs.”). Therefore, the Panel finds that the <pornhub-th.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s PORNHUB mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name: where a response is lacking, relevant WHOIS information can be used as evidence to show a respondent is or is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Chevron Intellectual Property LLC v. Fred Wallace, FA1506001626022 (Forum July 27, 2015) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <chevron-europe.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), as the WHOIS information named “Fred Wallace” as registrant of the disputed domain name). Here, the WHOIS of record identifies the Respondent as “dominic name”. 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 divert Internet users seeking Complainant to a competing website. Using a disputed domain name to redirect Internet users seeking a complainant goods or services to a competing website may not be a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Vanguard Trademark Holdings USA LLC v. Dan Stanley Saturne, FA 1785085 (Forum June 8, 2018) (“Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name does not amount to a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use” where “Respondent is apparently using the disputed domain name to offer for sale competing services.”). Therefore, the Panel fins that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (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 is attempting to disrupt Complainant’s business by diverting Internet users to a competing website that may present a false impression of affiliation with Complainant. Respondent gains commercially from this diversion. Registering a disputed domain name for the purpose of diverting Internet user seeking a complainant’s services to a website offering competing service may be evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii), and redirecting Internet users to competing service for commercial gain may be evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See ZIH Corp. v. ou yang lin q, FA1761403 (Forum Dec. 29, 2017) (Finding bad faith where Respondent used the infringing domain name to disrupt Complainant’s business by diverting Internet users from Complainant’s website to Respondent’s website where it offered competing printer products); see also OneWest Bank N.A. v. Matthew Foglia, FA1503001611449 (Forum Apr. 26, 2015) (holding that the respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to direct Internet users to a website which competed with the complainant was evidence of bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv).
Further, Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s mark: the resolving website display’s Complainant’s mark and a logo that is similar to Complainant’s logo. While constructive notice is insufficient to demonstrate bad faith, actual knowledge of a complainant’s rights in a mark prior to registration may be evidence of bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Custom Modular Direct LLC v. Custom Modular Homes Inc., FA 1140580 (Forum Apr. 8, 2008) (“There is no place for constructive notice under the Policy.”); see also Orbitz Worldwide, LLC v. Domain Librarian, FA 1535826 (Forum Feb. 6, 2014) (“The Panel notes that although the UDRP does not recognize ‘constructive notice’ as sufficient grounds for finding Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) bad faith, the Panel here finds actual knowledge through the name used for the domain and the use made of it.”); 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). The Panel finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the mark prior to Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name and that this constitutes bad faith under 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 <pornhub-th.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Richard Hill, Panelist
Dated: August 13, 2021
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page