national arbitration forum




AOL LLC v. Huang Li Technology CorpDomain Admin

Claim Number: FA0912001296625



Complainant is AOL LLC (“Complainant”), represented by James R. Davis, of Arent Fox LLP, DC.  Respondent is Huang Li Technology CorpDomain Admin (“Respondent”), China.



The domain names at issue are <>, <>, <> and <>, registered with Dynadot, LLC.



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 Panelist in this proceeding.


Judge Harold Kalina (Ret.) as Panelist.



Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on December 1, 2009; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on December 2, 2009.


On December 1, 2009, Dynadot, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <<>, <>, <> and <> domain names are registered with Dynadot, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names.  Dynadot, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Dynadot, LLC registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy").


On December 7, 2009, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of December 28, 2009 by which Respondent could file a response to the Complaint, was transmitted to Respondent via e-mail, post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts, and to,,, and by e-mail.


Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.


On January 5, 2010, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Judge Harold Kalina (Ret.) as Panelist.


Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the National Arbitration 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."  Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the National Arbitration 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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.



A.  Complainant makes the following assertions:


1.      Respondent’s <>, <>, <> and <> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s ENGADGET mark.


2.      Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <>, <>, <> and <> domain names.


3.      Respondent registered and used the <>, <>, <> and <> domain names in bad faith.


B.  Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.



Complainant, AOL LLC, holds several registrations of the ENGADGET mark (e.g., Reg. No. 3,232,307 issued Apr. 24, 2007) with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”).  Complainant uses its ENGADGET mark in order to promote its online technology blog.


Respondent, Huang Li Technology CorpDomain Admin, registered the <>, <>, <> and <> domain names on February 27, 2009.  The websites resolving from the disputed domain names display links to third-party websites, some of whom directly compete with Complainant.



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."


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(e), 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 and inferences set forth in the Complaint as true unless the evidence is clearly contradictory.  See Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 31, 2000) (holding that the respondent’s failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of the complaint to be deemed true); see also Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009 (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000) (“In the absence of a response, it is appropriate to accept as true all allegations of the Complaint.”).


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.


Identical and/or Confusingly Similar


Complainant, AOL LLC, has registered the ENGADGET mark (e.g., Reg. No. 3,232,607 issued Apr. 24, 2007) with the USPTO.  The Panel finds a complainant’s registration of a mark with a federal authority, even in a jurisdiction other than respondent’s residence, is sufficient to establish rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).  Thus, the Panel so finds Complainant has established rights in its ENGADGET mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) in these proceedings.  See Vivendi Universal Games v. XBNetVentures Inc., FA 198803 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 11, 2003) (“Complainant's federal trademark registrations establish Complainant's rights in the BLIZZARD mark.”); see also KCTS Television Inc. v. Get-on-the-Web Ltd., D2001-0154 (WIPO Apr. 20, 2001) (holding that it does not matter for the purpose of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy whether the complainant’s mark is registered in a country other than that of the respondent’s place of business).


Complainant contends the <>, <>, <> and <> domain names are each confusingly similar to Complainant’s ENGADGET mark.  The disputed domain names contain Complainant’s mark with one or more of the following alterations: (1) the addition of a letter to the mark; (2) the substitution of a letter within the mark; (3) the addition of a misspelled generic term (i.e. “moile,” presumably a misspelled version of “mobile”); and/or (4) the addition of the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.”  The Panel finds none of these combinations of alterations sufficiently distinguish any of these disputed domain names from Complainant’s ENGADGET mark.  Thus, the Panel finds the disputed domain names are each confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).  See Reuters Ltd. v. Global Net 2000, Inc., D2000-0441 (WIPO July 13, 2000) (finding that a domain name which differs by only one letter from a trademark has a greater tendency to be confusingly similar to the trademark where the trademark is highly distinctive); see also Google, Inc. v., FA 286993 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 4, 2004) (“The mere addition of a single letter to the complainant’s mark does not remove the respondent’s domain names from the realm of confusing similarity in relation to the complainant’s mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”); see also Arthur Guinness Son & Co. (Dublin) Ltd. v. Healy/BOSTH, D2001-0026 (WIPO Mar. 23, 2001) (finding confusing similarity where the domain name in dispute contains the identical mark of the complainant combined with a generic word or term); see also Isleworth Land Co. v. Lost in Space, SA, FA 117330 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 27, 2002) (“[I]t is a well established principle that generic top-level domains are irrelevant when conducting a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis.”).


The Panel finds Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.


Rights or Legitimate Interests


Initially under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must prove that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.  Once Complainant has made a prima facie case, the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests pursuant to the factors listed in Policy ¶ 4(c).  See Compagnie Generale des Matieres Nucleaires v. Greenpeace Int’l, D2001-0376 (WIPO May 14, 2001) (“Proving that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name requires the Complainant to prove a negative. For the purposes of this sub paragraph, however, it is sufficient for the Complainant to show a prima facie case and the burden of proof is then shifted on to the shoulders of Respondent.  In those circumstances, the common approach is for respondents to seek to bring themselves within one of the examples of paragraph 4(c) or put forward some other reason why they can fairly be said to have a relevant right or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name in question.”); see also Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000-0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (holding that once the complainant asserts that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the domain, the burden shifts to the respondent to provide “concrete evidence that it has rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name at issue”).  The Panel finds that Complainant has presented a prima facie case, however Respondent has failed to submit a response to these proceedings.  Therefore, the Panel chooses to consider whether an evaluation of all the evidence demonstrates Respondent has rights or legitimate interests under Policy ¶ 4(c).



There is no evidence in the record suggesting that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain names.  Complainant asserts that Respondent has no license or agreement with Complainant authorizing Respondent to use the ENGADGET mark.  The WHOIS information identifies the registrant of each of the disputed domain names as “Huang Li Technology CorpDomain Admin.”  Thus, the Panel finds there is no evidence Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain names under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).  See Tercent Inc. v. Lee Yi, FA 139720 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 10, 2003) (stating “nothing in Respondent’s WHOIS information implies that Respondent is ‘commonly known by’ the disputed domain name” as one factor in determining that Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) does not apply); see also Am. W. Airlines, Inc. v. Paik, FA 206396 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 22, 2003) (“Respondent has registered the domain name under the name ‘Ilyoup Paik a/k/a David Sanders.’  Given the WHOIS domain name registration information, Respondent is not commonly known by the [<>] domain name.”).


Respondent is using the confusingly similar disputed domain names to redirect Internet users interested in Complainant’s technology blog services to third-party websites that compete with Complainant.  The Panel finds this use is not a use in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain names pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).  See TM Acquisition Corp. v. Sign Guards, FA 132439 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 31, 2002) (finding that the respondent’s diversionary use of the complainant’s marks to send Internet users to a website which displayed a series of links, some of which linked to the complainant’s competitors, was not a bona fide offering of goods or services); see also Glaxo Group Ltd. v. WWW Zban, FA 203164 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 1, 2003) (finding that the respondent was not using the domain name within the parameters of Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii) because the respondent used the domain name to take advantage of the complainant's mark by diverting Internet users to a competing commercial site).


Furthermore, Complainant contends the disputed domain names each take advantage of Internet users who mistype Complainant’s ENGADGET mark.  The Panel finds that Respondent has engaged in typosquatting by misspelling Complainant’s mark in the disputed domain names.  This is further evidence that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).  See LTD Commodities LLC v. Party Night, Inc., FA 165155 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 14, 2003) (finding that the <>, <>, and <> domain names were intentional misspellings of the complainant's LTD COMMODITIES mark and this “‘typosquatting’ is evidence that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names”); see also IndyMac Bank F.S.B. v. Ebeyer, FA 175292 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 19, 2003) (finding that the respondent lacked rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names because it “engaged in the practice of typosquatting by taking advantage of Internet users who attempt to access Complainant's <> website but mistakenly misspell Complainant's mark by typing the letter ‘x’ instead of the letter ‘c’”).


The Panel finds Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.


Registration and Use in Bad Faith


Respondent registered the disputed domain names on February 27, 2009 and since then Respondent has been using the disputed domain names to resolve to a website containing links to third-party websites.  These third-party websites link Internet users to competing technology blogs and other related services.  The Panel finds this use of the disputed domain names is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).  See Puckett, Individually v. Miller, D2000-0297 (WIPO June 12, 2000) (finding that the respondent has diverted business from the complainant to a competitor’s website in violation of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)); see also EBAY, Inc. v. MEOdesigns, D2000-1368 (WIPO Dec. 15, 2000) (finding that the respondent registered and used the domain name <> in bad faith where the respondent has used the domain name to promote competing auction sites).


The disputed domain names resolve to websites displaying links to third-party websites competing with Complainant’s technology blog.  The Panel presumes Respondent receives click-through fees for placing these links on the resolving websites.  Since the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark, Internet users are likely to become confused as to Complainant’s affiliation with the disputed domain names and resolving websites.  Respondent was seeking to profit from this confusion by hosting advertisements on the resolving website.  The Panel finds this use is evidence of Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain names pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).  See Am. Univ. v. Cook, FA 208629 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 22, 2003) (“Registration and use of a domain name that incorporates another's mark with the intent to deceive Internet users in regard to the source or affiliation of the domain name is evidence of bad faith.”); see also Philip Morris Inc. v., D2003-0004 (WIPO Feb. 28, 2003) (finding that the respondent’s registration of an infringing domain name to redirect Internet users to banner advertisements constituted bad faith use of the domain name).


Furthermore, the Panel finds that Respondent’s engagement in typosquatting is evidence that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith under to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).  See Zone Labs, Inc. v. Zuccarini, FA 190613 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 15, 2003) (“Respondent’s registration and use of [the <> domain name] that capitalizes on the typographical error of an Internet user is considered typosquatting. Typosquatting, itself is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”); see also Dermalogica, Inc. v. Domains to Develop, FA 175201 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 22, 2003) (finding that the <> domain name was a “simple misspelling” of the complainant's DERMALOGICA mark which indicated typosquatting and bad faith pursuant to 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 <>, <>, <> and <> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.



Judge Harold Kalina (Ret.), Panelist

Dated:  January 18, 2010



Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.


Click Here to return to our Home Page


National Arbitration Forum