Microsoft Corporation v. cheng juan
Claim Number: FA1205001445084
Complainant is Microsoft Corporation (“Complainant”), represented by Molly Buck Richard of Richard Law Group, Inc., Texas, USA. Respondent is cheng juan (“Respondent”), China.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <xbox8.us>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.
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.
Bruce E. Meyerson as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on May 21, 2012. The National Arbitration Forum received the hard copy of the Complaint on May 25, 2012.
On May 22, 2012, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <xbox8.us> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, LLC registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with the U. S. Department of Commerce’s usTLD Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On May 25, 2012, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of June 14, 2012 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, was transmitted to Respondent in compliance with Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for usTLD Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”).
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On June 20, 2012, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Bruce E. Meyerson 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. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, the 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
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant holds a registered trademark for the XBOX mark in the United States and elsewhere. Respondent did not submit a Response in this proceeding.
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 or 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(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.”).
Given the similarity between the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“UDRP”) and the usTLD Policy, the Panel will draw upon UDRP precedent as applicable in rendering its decision.
Complainant asserts that it has rights in the XBOX mark through its trademark registrations of the mark with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 2,663,880 registered December 17, 2002) and SAIC (e.g., Reg. No. 1,698,267 registered January 14, 2002), among others. Complainant’s multiple trademark registrations of the XBOX mark with national trademark authorities worldwide are sufficient for Complainant to establish rights in its mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Norgren, Inc. v. sh ying zhe, FA 1318448 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 2, 2010) (holding that the complainant’s trademark registration with China’s State Intellectual Property Office was sufficient to establish rights in the mark under UDRP ¶ 4(a)(i)); see also Honeywell Int’l Inc. v. r9.net, FA 445594 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 23, 2005) (finding the complainant’s numerous registrations for its HONEYWELL mark throughout the world sufficient to establish the complainant’s rights in the mark under the UDRP ¶ 4(a)(i)).
Further, Complainant argues that the <xbox8.us> domain name is confusingly similar to the XBOX mark. Complainant notes that the disputed domain name contains its mark entirely, while adding the numeral “8” and the country-code top-level domain (“ccTLD”) “.us.” Such changes do not remove the disputed domain name from the realm of confusing similarity. See Am. Online Inc. v. Chinese ICQ Network, D2000-0808 (WIPO Aug. 31, 2000) (finding that the addition of the numeral 4 in the domain name <4icq.com> does nothing to deflect the impact on the viewer of the mark ICQ and is therefore confusingly similar); see also CDW Computer Ctrs., Inc. v. The Joy Co., FA 114463 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 25, 2002) (finding that the addition of the ccTLD “.us” is inconsequential and does not defeat a claim of confusing similarity). Therefore, the <xbox8.us> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s XBOX mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant alleges that Respondent holds no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. This allegation must be supported with a prima facie showing by Complainant under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). After a complainant successfully makes a prima facie case, a respondent is faced with the burden of proving it does have rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. In Swedish Match UK Ltd. v. Admin, Domain, FA 873137 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 13, 2007), the panel held that when a complainant produces a prima facie case, the burden of proof then shifts to the respondent to demonstrate its rights or legitimate interests in the domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c). See also Compagnie Generale des Matieres Nucleaires v. Greenpeace Int’l, D2001-0376 (WIPO May 14, 2001) (“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.”). The Panel holds that Complainant has made a prima facie case.
Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. In furtherance of this argument, Complainant contends that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name or the XBOX mark. Complainant notes that the current WHOIS information identifies the domain name registrant as “Cheng Juan.” Further, Complainant argues that it has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use the XBOX mark. Based upon this information, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). 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).
Complainant argues that Respondent’s <xbox8.us> domain name does not resolve to any content. Complainant contends that the disputed domain name resolves to a blank web page and is inactive. The Panel agrees and finds that Respondent’s failure to make an active use of the disputed domain name is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iv). See Bloomberg L.P. v. SC Media Servs. & Info. SRL, FA 296583 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 2, 2004) (“The Panel finds that the [failure to make an active use] of a domain name that is identical to Complainant’s mark is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to [UDRP] ¶ 4(c)(i) and it is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name pursuant to [UDRP] ¶ 4(c)(iii).”)
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Complainant argues that Respondent has engaged in a pattern of registering infringing domain names and that, as such, Respondent has registered the <xbox8.us> domain name in bad faith. Complainant argues that Respondent has been known by a different name and has been involved in a prior UDRP decision under that name. See Citigroup, Inc. v. zhang na, FA 1414111 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 1, 2011). Complainant also asserts that Respondent has registered domain names that infringe upon other trademark owner’s trademark rights and that such registrations are further evidence of Respondent’s bad faith in the current instance. Because the agrees that Respondent has engaged in a pattern of bad faith registration and use of domain names, the Panel finds that Respondent registered the <xbox8.us> domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). See Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Bin g Glu, FA 1036129 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 2, 2007) (holding prior UDRP proceedings were sufficient evidence of a pattern of bad faith registrations); see also Armstrong Holdings, Inc. v. JAZ Assocs., FA 95234 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 17, 2000) (finding that the respondent violated UDRP ¶ 4(b)(ii) by registering multiple domain names that infringe upon others’ famous and registered trademarks).
Further, Complainant argues that Respondent’s failure to make an active use of the disputed domain name is evidence of bad faith registration and use in and of itself. Respondent’s failure to actively use the disputed domain name is evidence of both its bad faith registration and use of the domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Am. Broad. Cos., Inc. v. Sech, FA 893427 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 28, 2007) (concluding that the respondent’s failure to make active use of its domain name in the three months after its registration indicated that the respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith).
The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Having established all three elements required under the usTLD Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <xbox8.us> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Bruce E. Meyerson, Panelist
Dated: June 25, 2012
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page