Ring Central, Inc. v. I-NETWORKS, LLC c/o Gary Adair
Claim Number: FA1004001322254
Complainant is Ring Central, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by CitizenHawk,
Inc.,
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN
NAMES
The domain names at issue are <eingcentral.com>, <riingcentral.com>, <rimgcentral.com>, <ringccentral.com>, <ringcebtral.com>, <ringcenrral.com>, <ringcenteal.com>, <ringcentraal.com>, <ringcentrak.com>, <ringcentrsl.com>, <ringcenttral.com>, <ringcenyral.com>, <ringcrntral.com>, <ringgcentral.com>, <ringventral.com>, <ringxentral.com>, <rinhcentral.com>, <rinngcentral.com>, <rongcentral.com>, <rringcentral.com>, and <rungcentral.com>, registered with Directi Internet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. d/b/a Publicd.
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.
Honorable Paul A. Dorf (Ret.) as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on April 30, 2010.
On May 4, 2010, Directi Internet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. d/b/a Publicd confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <eingcentral.com>, <riingcentral.com>, <rimgcentral.com>, <ringccentral.com>, <ringcebtral.com>, <ringcenrral.com>, <ringcenteal.com>, <ringcentraal.com>, <ringcentrak.com>, <ringcentrsl.com>, <ringcenttral.com>, <ringcenyral.com>, <ringcrntral.com>, <ringgcentral.com>, <ringventral.com>, <ringxentral.com>, <rinhcentral.com>, <rinngcentral.com>, <rongcentral.com>, <rringcentral.com>, and <rungcentral.com> domain names are registered with Directi Internet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. d/b/a Publicd and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Directi Internet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. d/b/a Publicd has verified that Respondent is bound by the Directi Internet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. d/b/a Publicd 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 May 6, 2010, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of May 26, 2010 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@eingcentral.com, postmaster@riingcentral.com, postmaster@rimgcentral.com, postmaster@ringccentral.com, postmaster@ringcebtral.com, postmaster@ringcenrral.com, postmaster@ringcenteal.com, postmaster@ringcentraal.com, postmaster@ringcentrak.com, postmaster@ringcentrsl.com, postmaster@ringcenttral.com, postmaster@ringcenyral.com, postmaster@ringcrntral.com, postmaster@ringgcentral.com, postmaster@ringventral.com, postmaster@ringxentral.com, postmaster@rinhcentral.com, postmaster@rinngcentral.com, postmaster@rongcentral.com, postmaster@rringcentral.com, and postmaster@rungcentral.com. Also on May 6, 2010, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the email 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 National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On June 1, 2010, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Honorable Paul A. Dorf (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 "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent" through submission of a Written Notice, as defined in Rule 1. 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 <eingcentral.com>, <riingcentral.com>, <rimgcentral.com>, <ringccentral.com>, <ringcebtral.com>, <ringcenrral.com>, <ringcenteal.com>, <ringcentraal.com>, <ringcentrak.com>, <ringcentrsl.com>, <ringcenttral.com>, <ringcenyral.com>, <ringcrntral.com>, <ringgcentral.com>, <ringventral.com>, <ringxentral.com>, <rinhcentral.com>, <rinngcentral.com>, <rongcentral.com>, <rringcentral.com>, and <rungcentral.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s RINGCENTRAL mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <eingcentral.com>, <riingcentral.com>, <rimgcentral.com>, <ringccentral.com>, <ringcebtral.com>, <ringcenrral.com>, <ringcenteal.com>, <ringcentraal.com>, <ringcentrak.com>, <ringcentrsl.com>, <ringcenttral.com>, <ringcenyral.com>, <ringcrntral.com>, <ringgcentral.com>, <ringventral.com>, <ringxentral.com>, <rinhcentral.com>, <rinngcentral.com>, <rongcentral.com>, <rringcentral.com>, and <rungcentral.com> domain names.
3. Respondent registered and used the <eingcentral.com>, <riingcentral.com>, <rimgcentral.com>, <ringccentral.com>, <ringcebtral.com>, <ringcenrral.com>, <ringcenteal.com>, <ringcentraal.com>, <ringcentrak.com>, <ringcentrsl.com>, <ringcenttral.com>, <ringcenyral.com>, <ringcrntral.com>, <ringgcentral.com>, <ringventral.com>, <ringxentral.com>, <rinhcentral.com>, <rinngcentral.com>, <rongcentral.com>, <rringcentral.com>, and <rungcentral.com> domain names in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, RingCentral, Inc. offers business phone systems to small and mid-sized businesses around the world. Complainant owns multiple trademark registrations for the RINGCENTRAL mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 3,302,115 issued October 10, 2002).
Respondent registered the domain names on or after January 4, 2010. Respondent’s disputed domain names resolve to websites displaying third-party links to websites offering phone systems in competition 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.
Complainant owns multiple trademark registrations for the
RINGCENTRAL mark with the USPTO (e.g.,
Reg. No. 3,302,115 issued October 10, 2002).
The Panel finds that Complainant has established rights in the
RINGCENTRAL mark for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)
through its trademark registrations with the USPTO. See
Automotive Racing Products, Inc. v. Linecom, FA 836787 (Nat. Arb. Forum
Dec. 21, 2006) (finding that the Complainant’s federal trademark registration
established its rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i));
see also
Complainant argues that Respondent’s <eingcentral.com>, <riingcentral.com>, <rimgcentral.com>, <ringccentral.com>, <ringcebtral.com>, <ringcenrral.com>, <ringcenteal.com>, <ringcentraal.com>, <ringcentrak.com>, <ringcentrsl.com>, <ringcenttral.com>, <ringcenyral.com>, <ringcrntral.com>, <ringgcentral.com>, <ringventral.com>, <ringxentral.com>, <rinhcentral.com>, <rinngcentral.com>, <rongcentral.com>, <rringcentral.com>, and <rungcentral.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s RINGCENTRAL mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Each of Respondent’s disputed domain names contain a misspelled version of Complainant’s mark and adds the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.” The Panel finds that a disputed domain name that contains a misspelled version of a complainant’s mark fails to realize a distinguishing characteristic and creates a confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the complainant’s mark. 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 Victoria’s Secret v. Zuccarini, FA 95762 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 18, 2000) (finding that, by misspelling words and adding letters to words, a respondent does not create a distinct mark but nevertheless renders the domain name confusingly similar to the complainant’s marks). In addition, the Panel finds that the addition of a gTLD is irrelevant in distinguishing a disputed domain name from an established mark. See Trip Network Inc. v. Alviera, FA 914943 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 27, 2007) (concluding that the affixation of a gTLD to a domain name is irrelevant to a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis); see also Reese v. Morgan, FA 917029 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 5, 2007) (finding that the mere addition of the generic top-level domain “.com” is insufficient to differentiate a disputed domain name from a mark). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent’s disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Complainant asserts that Respondent lacks all rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. When Complainant makes a prima facie case in support of its allegations, the burden shifts to Respondent to prove that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). The Panel finds that in this case, Complainant has established a prima facie case and Respondent has failed to submit a Response to these proceedings. See Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc. v. Samjo CellTech.Ltd, FA 406512 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 9, 2005) (“Complainant has made a prima facie showing that Respondent lacks rights to the Domain Name. The threshold for making such a showing is quite low, since it is difficult to produce evidence to support a negative statement. Here, Complainant has alleged that Respondent does not own any rights in the terms STARWOOD or STARWOODS, and that Respondent’s use of the Domain Name is not a fair one. These unsupported assertions, though sparse, are sufficient to make a prima facie showing in regard to the legitimacy element.”); see also AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 25, 2006) (finding that if the complainant satisfies its prima facie burden, “then the burden shifts to the respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names.”).
Complainant contends that Respondent is not commonly known
by the disputed domain names
under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). The pertinent WHOIS information for the
disputed domain names identifies the registrant as “I-NETWORKS, LLC c/o Gary
Adair,” and there is no other evidence in the record to suggest that Respondent
is otherwise commonly known by the disputed
domain names. Thus, the Panel concludes
that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names under Policy
¶ 4(c)(ii). See Braun Corp. v.
Loney, FA 699652 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 7, 2006) (concluding that the
respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain names where the WHOIS
information, as well as all other information in the record, gave no indication
that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain names, and the
complainant had not authorized the respondent to register a domain name
containing its registered mark); see also
Coppertown Drive-Thru Sys., LLC v.
Snowden, FA 715089 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 17, 2006) (concluding that the
respondent was not commonly known by the <coppertown.com> domain name
where there was no evidence in the record, including the WHOIS information,
suggesting that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name).
Respondent’s disputed
domain names resolve to websites featuring click-through links and
advertisements for Complainant’s competitors. The Panel finds that Respondent’s
use of the disputed domain names
to redirect Internet users to Complainant’s competitors, presumably for
financial gain, does not constitute a bona
fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a
legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Expedia, Inc. v. Compaid, FA 520654 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 30, 2005)
(finding that the respondent’s use of the <expediate.com> domain name to
redirect Internet users to a website featuring links to travel services that
competed with the complainant was not a bona fide offering of goods or
services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate
noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)); see also Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Bonds, FA 873143 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 16, 2007) (concluding that using
a confusingly similar domain name to divert Internet users to competing
websites does not represent 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)).
In addition, Respondent’s
use of the disputed
domain names constitute typosquatting.
The disputed domain names contain common typographical errors and
misspellings of Complainant’s RINGCENTRAL mark.
The Panel finds that Respondent’s engagement in the practice of
typosquatting is further evidence that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate
interests in the disputed
domain names under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See LTD Commodities LLC v. Party
Night, Inc., FA 165155 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 14, 2003) (finding that the <ltdcommadities.com>,
<ltdcommmodities.com>, and <ltdcommodaties.com> domain names were
intentional misspellings of Complainant's LTD COMMODITIES mark and this
“‘typosquatting’ is evidence that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate
interests in the disputed domain names”); see
also Microsoft Corp. v. Domain Registration
The Panel finds
that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
The Panel finds that Respondent’s registration of multiple domain names containing Complainant’s RINGCENTRAL mark is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). See Harcourt, Inc. v. Fadness, FA 95247 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 8, 2000) (finding that one instance of registration of several infringing domain names satisfies the burden imposed by the Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii)); see also Armstrong Holdings, Inc. v. JAZ Assocs., FA 95234 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 17, 2000) (finding that the respondent violated Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii) by registering multiple domain names that infringe upon others’ famous and registered trademarks).
Respondent’s disputed domain names resolve to websites that promote
Complainant’s competitors in the phone system industry through click-through
links. Such an activity clearly disrupts
Complainant’s business, as Internet users seeking Complainant’s products will
be redirected to Complainant’s competitors.
This qualifies as bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See
Complainant contends that Respondent is gaining commercially
through this diversion, through click-through fees that Respondent is
presumably receiving from its use of the disputed domain names. The Panel finds
that Respondent is intentionally using the disputed domain names for commercial gain
through a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark, and so, pursuant to
Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv), the Panel finds that this use for
commercial gain also constitutes evidence of registration and use in bad
faith. See T-Mobile USA, Inc. v. utahhealth, FA 697821 (Nat. Arb. Forum
June 7, 2006) (holding that the registration and use of a domain name
confusingly similar to a complainant’s mark to direct Internet traffic to a
commercial “links page” in order to profit from click-through fees or other
revenue sources constitutes bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)); see also
Lastly, the Panel finds that Respondent’s disputed domain names are merely typosquatted versions of Complainant’s RINGCENTRAL mark, and that such typosquatting constitutes bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Computerized Sec. Sys., Inc. v. Hu, FA 157321 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 23, 2003) (finding that the respondent engaged in typosquatting, which is evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)); see also Bank of Am. Corp. v. Tak Ume domains for sale, FA 154528 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 19, 2003) (“Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name demonstrates a practice commonly referred to as ‘typosquatting.’ This practice diverts Internet users who misspell Complainant’s mark to a website apparently owned by Respondent for Respondent’s commercial gain. ‘Typosquatting’ has been recognized as evidencing bad faith registration and use…”).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been satisfied.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <eingcentral.com>, <riingcentral.com>, <rimgcentral.com>, <ringccentral.com>, <ringcebtral.com>, <ringcenrral.com>, <ringcenteal.com>, <ringcentraal.com>, <ringcentrak.com>, <ringcentrsl.com>, <ringcenttral.com>, <ringcenyral.com>, <ringcrntral.com>, <ringgcentral.com>, <ringventral.com>, <ringxentral.com>, <rinhcentral.com>, <rinngcentral.com>, <rongcentral.com>, <rringcentral.com>, and <rungcentral.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Honorable Paul A. Dorf (Ret.), Panelist
Dated: June 9, 2010
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National Arbitration Forum