Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. and Hewlett-Packard Company v. Numan c/o Qtechsol
Claim Number: FA1009001347938
Complainant is Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. and Hewlett-Packard Company ("Complainant"), represented by James F. Struthers of Richard Law Group, Inc., Texas, USA. Respondent is Numan c/o Qtechsol ("Respondent"), England.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <hpcertification.com>, registered with OnlineNIC, Inc.
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.
Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on September 22, 2010; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on September 23, 2010.
On September 17, 2010, OnlineNIC, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <hpcertification.com> domain name is registered with OnlineNIC, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. OnlineNIC, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the OnlineNIC, 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 September 28, 2010, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of October 18, 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@hpcertification.com. Also on September 28, 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 November 2, 2010, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Sandra J. Franklin 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" 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 National Arbitration Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of a response from Respondent.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant makes the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s <hpcertification.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s HP mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <hpcertification.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <hpcertification.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. and Hewlett-Packard Company, operates an international computer and information technology company. Complainant holds multiple trademark registrations for its HP mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 1,116,835 issued April 24, 1979).
Respondent registered the <hpcertification.com> domain name on July 26, 2007. The disputed domain name resolves to a website selling and promoting the sale of third-party information technology (IT) certification exam preparation materials that compete with those of 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.
Registration with a federal trademark authority is sufficient to establish rights in a mark. See Paisley Park Enters. v. Lawson, FA 384834 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 1, 2005) (finding that the complainant had established rights in the PAISLEY PARK mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through registration of the mark with the USPTO); see also Renaissance Hotel Holdings, Inc. v. Renaissance Cochin, FA 932344 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 23, 2007) (finding that it does not matter whether the complainant has registered its trademark in the country in which the respondent resides, only that it can establish rights in some jurisdiction). Accordingly, the Panel finds Complainant’s trademark registration of the HP mark establishes rights in the mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Respondent’s <hpcertification.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s HP mark. The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant’s HP mark while adding the generic term “certification” and the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.” The Panel finds that these additions to Complainant’s mark do not sufficiently distinguish the disputed domain names from Complainant’s mark. See 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 Jerry Damson, Inc. v. Tex. Int’l Prop. Assocs., FA 916991 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 10, 2007) (“The mere addition of a generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com” does not serve to adequately distinguish the Domain Name from the mark.”). Thus, the Panel finds that Respondent’s <hpcertification.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s HP mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
The Panel finds Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been established.
Complainant contends that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <hpcertification.com> domain name. Once a complainant makes a prima facie case in support of its allegations, the burden shifts to the respondent to prove it has rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). The Panel finds that Complainant has made a prima facie showing and, because Respondent failed to make a timely response, the Panel may assume that it does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <hpcertification.com> domain name. However, the Panel will examine whether the record shows Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the <hpcertification.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c). See Swedish Match UK Ltd. v. Admin, Domain, FA 873137 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 13, 2007) (finding that once a prima facie case has been established by the complainant, the burden then shifts to the respondent to demonstrate its rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)); see also Broadcom Corp. v. Ibecom PLC, FA 361190 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 22, 2004) (“Respondent’s failure to respond to the Complaint functions as an implicit admission that [Respondent] lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. It also allows the Panel to accept all reasonable allegations set forth…as true.”).
Complainant alleges Respondent is not commonly known by the <hpcertification.com> domain name. The Panel finds no evidence in the record that would provide a basis for finding that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. The WHOIS information does not contain any information showing Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain. Further, Complainant alleges that it has not authorized or licensed Respondent to use its HP mark. Thus, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the <hpcertification.com> domain name 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 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).
The disputed <hpcertification.com> domain name resolves to a website offering services that compete with Complainant. Specifically, Respondent uses the disputed domain name to offer IT certification exam preparation materials and other services that compete with Complainant’s exam preparation services. The Panel finds that such use is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Computerized Sec. Sys., Inc. v. Hu, FA 157321 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 23, 2003) (“Respondent’s appropriation of [Complainant’s] SAFLOK mark to market products that compete with Complainant’s goods does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods and services.”); see also Ultimate Elecs., Inc. v. Nichols, FA 195683 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 27, 2003) (finding that the respondent's “use of the domain name (and Complainant’s mark) to sell products in competition with Complainant demonstrates neither a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the name”).
The Panel finds Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been established.
Respondent’s <hpcertification.com> domain name resolves to a website that competes with Complainant’s exam preparation services. Respondent’s seeks to profit from Complainant’s international recognition while disrupting Complainant’s business, which is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See DatingDirect.com Ltd. v. Aston, FA 593977 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 28, 2005) (“Respondent is appropriating Complainant’s mark to divert Complainant’s customers to Respondent’s competing business. The Panel finds this diversion is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).”); see also Jerie v. Burian, FA 795430 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 30, 2006) (concluding that the respondent registered and used the <sportlivescore.com> domain name in order to disrupt the complainant’s business under the LIVESCORE mark because the respondent was maintaining a website in direct competition with the complainant).
Respondent uses Complainant’s HP mark to redirect Internet users to Respondent’s <hpcertification.com> domain name. Internet users seeking Complainant’s exam preparation services are confused as to the source, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s disputed domain name. The Panel finds that such use of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Velv, LLC v. AAE, FA 677922 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 25, 2006) (finding that the respondent’s use of the <arizonashuttle.net> domain name, which contained the complainant’s ARIZONA SHUTTLE mark, to attract Internet traffic to the respondent’s website offering competing travel services violated Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)); see also Dell Inc. v. Innervision Web Solutions, FA 445601 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 23, 2005) (finding evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the respondent was using the <dellcomputerssuck.com> domain name to divert Internet users to respondent’s website offering competing computer products and services).
The Panel finds Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been established.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <hpcertification.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist
Dated: November 9, 2010
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page