URS DEFAULT DETERMINATION


General Electric Company v. Dan Li
Claim Number: FA2204001990682


DOMAIN NAME

<geoffcial.top>


PARTIES


   Complainant: General Electric Company Marina Dostal of Norwalk, CT, United States of America
  

   Respondent: Li Dan / Dan Li of 郑州, Henan, II, CN
  

REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS


   Registries: .TOP Registry
   Registrars: Chengdu west dimension digital

EXAMINER


   The undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his or her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Examiner in this proceeding.
   Saravanan Dhandapani, as Examiner

PROCEDURAL HISTORY


   Complainant Submitted: April 1, 2022
   Commencement: April 8, 2022
   Default Date: April 25, 2022
   Having reviewed the communications records, the Examiner finds that the Forum has discharged its responsibility under URS Procedure Paragraphs 3 and 4 and Rule 4 of the Rules for the Uniform Rapid Suspension System (the "Rules").

RELIEF SOUGHT


   Complainant requests that the domain name be suspended for the life of the registration.

STANDARD OF REVIEW


   Clear and convincing evidence.

FINDINGS and DISCUSSION


   Procedural Findings:  
      Multiple Complainants: Multiple Complainants: No multiple Complainants are involved in this proceeding. This Complaint and findings relate to the domain name <geoffcial.top>. No domain name is dismissed from this Complaint.
      Multiple Respondents: Multiple Respondents: No multiple Respondents are involved in this proceeding. This Complaint and findings relate to the domain <geoffcial.top>. No domain name is dismissed from this Complaint.

   Findings of Fact: The case of the Complainant is as follows: The Complainant, General Electric, is one of the most recognized companies in the world. It has been using its famous marks GE and the GE logo (the “GE Marks”) for over a century in connection with a wide variety of goods and services, including medical equipment as well as financing and leasing of medical equipment. The GE Marks are registered in many countries throughout the world including the United States (select registration certificates are attached). While the identity of the Registrant is protected through a privacy service, Complainant can confirm that the disputed domain name GEOFFCIAL.TOP and the website it directs to (“Disputed Domain”) are not in any way associated with Complainant and Complainant has not authorized use of the GE Marks in the Disputed Domain. There is nothing in the Disputed Domain’s WHOIS information, or in the record that would demonstrate that the registrant otherwise has any legitimate right or interest to the disputed domain name. The Disputed Domain incorporates Complainant’s mark “GE” in its entirety. The misspelled word “OFFCIAL” added to the mark GE in the Disputed Domain only exacerbates a likelihood of confusion as the Domain Name suggests it is GE’s official website. Although the Disputed Domain directs to a password-protected website, Complainant has found a number of Youtube videos showing the content of the website and how to use it. These are examples of the videos; we include screenshots in the attached evidence: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_wPP5PIto0; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nppkPVF2V8; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1KIfZsAySbA; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=scD-tKFC3WA; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rk8_X2VOHrU; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUpmnuHAI08; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0CG6GvRAt4 In these videos, the Disputed Domain is referred to as “GE Official App.” The videos show you how to sign up (you need to enter your phone number to get a code) and they walk you through the content of the website which shows users how to “purchase” medical equipment with the goal of renting it for profit. It does not appear one can actually purchase any medical devices through this website, but the website does ask for users’ personal information and prompts them to create an account (using their banking information) to purchase medical devices. Because the website shows GE’s company profile (videos of GE employees, recent company news, etc.) in addition to the website’s domain name “GEOFFCIAL” suggesting it is GE’s official website, viewers will likely think this website is related to GE and involves GE’s medical equipment. Thus, the Disputed Domain is used to defraud consumers by “phishing” for users’ personal information and making them believe they are using Complainant’s official investment app. Use of a disputed domain name for the purpose of defrauding Internet users by the operation of a “phishing” website serves as clear evidence of registration and use of a domain name in bad faith. See The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc v. Secret Registration Customer ID 232883, WIPO Case No. D2012-2093. Some of the videos also reference an unrelated company Daktronics. Complainant has actually been contacted by Daktronics who also confirmed it is a scam and their company is not affiliated with the Domain Name.

  

Even though the Respondent has defaulted, URS Procedure 1.2.6, requires Complainant to make a prima facie case, proven by clear and convincing evidence, for each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be suspended.


[URS 1.2.6.1] The registered domain name(s) is/are identical or confusingly similar to a word mark:
  (i) for which the Complainant holds a valid national or regional registration and that is in current use; or
  (ii) that has been validated through court proceedings; or
  (iii) that is specifically protected by a statute or treaty in effect at the time the URS complaint is filed.

Determined: Finding for Complainant 


The Complainant has proved by documentary evidence that they are the registered owner of trademark “GE". As noted, the disputed domain name <geoffcial.top> composes “ge”, misspelled word “offcial”, and “.top”. The word “ge” in disputed domain names is identical to Complainant’s registered mark “GE”. The “GE’ is known as one of the most familiar companies in the world. The misspelled word “offcial” and “.top” in disputed domain name, being a generic code Top-Level Domain name (gTLD), is suffix to the Complainant’s registered trademark. The suffixes are non-distinctive and are incapable of differentiating the disputed domain name from the Complainant’s registered trademark. Merely adding a suffix to a popular trademark cannot be the basis of a new trademark. Based on the “GE” being a registered trademark of the Complainant, the Examiner determines that URS 1.2.6.1(i) covers the domain name at issue in this Complaint.


[URS 1.2.6.2] Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name.

Determined: Finding for Complainant 


The Complainant owns registered mark “GE” for several years. The Complainant’s adoption and first use of the registered trademark is for quite some time. In such case, the burden lies on the Respondent to prove that he/she has legitimate rights and/or interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent is in default and has not filed any response. Although, the Complainant is not entitled to relief simply by default of the Respondent to submit a Response, the Examiner can however and does draw evidentiary inferences from the failure of the Respondent to respond. In view of the above, the Complainant has established a prima facie case of lack of rights and legitimate interest over the disputed domain name. Based on the record, the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. Hence, the Examiner determines that URS 1.2.6.2 covers the domain names at issue in this Complaint and that the Respondent has no legitimate right or interest to the domain names.


[URS 1.2.6.3] The domain name(s) was/were registered and is being used in bad faith.
  a. Registrant has registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of documented out-of pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
  b. Registrant has registered the domain name in order to prevent the trademark holder or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that Registrant has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
  c. Registrant registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
  d. By using the domain name Registrant has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain, Internet users to Registrant's web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Registrant's web site or location or of a product or service on that web site or location.

Determined: Finding for Complainant 


It is the specific case of the Complainant that the Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant in any manner and never authorized the Respondent to register or use any domain name incorporating “GE”. Thus, the Panel Examiner is of the firm view that using a confusingly similar domain name establishes the bad faith. It is well established that the registration and use of the disputed domain name must involve malafides where the registration and use of it was continues to be made in full knowledge of the Complainant’s prior rights in the “GE” registered mark and in circumstances where the registrant did not seek permission from the Complainant, as the owner of trademark, for such registration and use. Thus the Panel Examiner comes to irresistible determination that (i) the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s “GE” pre-existing trademark rights; (ii) the Respondent’s name does not correspond to the disputed domain name; (iii) the Respondent was aware of the Complainant and its trademark when it registered the disputed the domain name; (iv) there is no indication of any authorization to use the Complainant’s mark. Hence, it is lawful to conclude that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith. Thus, the Examiner determines that URS 1.2.6.3 (a) and (d) covers the domain name at issue in this Complaint and the domain name was registered and are being used in bad faith.


FINDING OF ABUSE or MATERIAL FALSEHOOD


The Examiner may find that the Complaint was brought in an abuse of this proceeding or that it contained material falsehoods.

The Examiner finds as follows:


  1. The Complaint was neither abusive nor contained material falsehoods. 

DETERMINATION


After reviewing the parties submissions, the Examiner determines that the Complainant has demonstrated all three elements of the URS by a standard of clear and convincing evidence; the Examiner hereby Orders the following domain name(s) be SUSPENDED for the duration of the registration:

  1. geoffcial.top

 

Saravanan Dhandapani
Examiner
Dated: April 26, 2022

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page