Signal Communications Limited v. Lan Zhou Qlian Li Yan Zhi Neng / Gu Yun Hao
Claim Number: FA1308001513762
Complainant is Signal Communications Limited (“Complainant”), represented by Nelson Choi, Hong Kong. Respondent is Lan Zhou Qlian Li Yan Zhi Neng / Gu Yun Hao (“Respondent”), China.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <teleeyecctv.com>, registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com.
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.
The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.) as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on August 8, 2013; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on August 16, 2013.
On August 9, 2013, PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <teleeyecctv.com> domain name is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com 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 August 21, 2013, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 10, 2013 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@teleeyecctv.com. Also on August 21, 2013, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail 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 September 11, 2013, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed the Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (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" 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 any response from Respondent.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
i. Respondent was not known by the domain name before his registration of this domain name.
ii. Complainant has not granted Respondent any license to use the TELEEYE mark.
i. Respondent will be using <teleeyecctv.com> for selling or otherwise transferring the domain name registration for valuable consideration.
ii. Respondent has registered <teleeyecctv.com> in order to prevent Complainant from reflecting its trademark and its goods in a corresponding domain name.
iii. Respondent’s registered the <teleeyecctv.com> domain name primarily for the purpose of unlawfully diluting the business of its competitors.
iv. Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the website <teleeyecctv.com> by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the website of Respondent and of the products and services on the website of Respondent.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Signal Communications Limited, owns the trademark TELEEYE. All services and products of Complainant’s company related to CCTV and video surveillance use this TELEEYE trademark. Complainant is the owner of a trademark registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) for the TELEEYE mark (Reg. No. 2,225,176, registered June 22, 1999). Complainant is also the owner of trademark registrations for the TELEEYE mark with Hong Kong Intellectual Property Department (“HKIPD”) (Reg. No. 1998B00965, registered February 2, 1996) and with China’s State Administration for Industry and Commerce (“SAIC”)(e.g., Reg. No. 1,141,356 registered January 7, 1998).
Respondent, Lan Zhou Qlian Li Yan Zhi Neng / Gu Yun Hao, registered the <teleeyecctv.com> domain name on December 16, 2012.
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 and 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.”).
The Panel finds that Complainant’s registration of the TELEEYE mark with the USPTO, SAIC, and HKIPD sufficiently proves its rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Am. Int’l Group, Inc. v. Morris, FA 569033 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 6, 2005) (“Complainant has established rights in the AIG mark through registration of the mark with several trademark authorities throughout the world, including the United States Patent and Trademark Office (‘USPTO’)”); see also Norgren, Inc. v. sh ying zhe, FA 1318448 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 2, 2010) (holding that the complainant’s trademark registration with China’s SAIC was sufficient to establish rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)).
Respondent registered the <teleeyecctv.com> domain name, which is a combination of Complainant’s TELEEYE trademark and the goods it provides under that mark (“cctv”). Respondent’s addition of a descriptive term does not differentiate Respondent’s domain name from Complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Experian Info. Solutions, Inc. v. Credit Research, Inc., D2002-0095 (WIPO May 7, 2002) (finding that several domain names incorporating the complainant’s entire EXPERIAN mark and merely adding the term “credit” were confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark). Respondent’s inclusion of a gTLD to Complainant’s mark is inconsequential pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Countrywide Fin. Corp. v. Johnson & Sons Sys., FA 1073019 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 24, 2007) (finding that the addition of the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com” was irrelevant). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent’s <teleeyecctv.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s TELEEYE mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 18, 2006) (holding that the complainant must first make a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under UDRP ¶ 4(a)(ii) before the burden shifts to the respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in a domain name).
Complainant contends that Respondent was not known by the <teleeyecctv.com> domain name before his registration of this domain name. Complainant asserts that Respondent’s company name is totally different from the domain name in dispute. The WHOIS information lists “Lan Zhou Qlian Li Yan Zhi Neng / Gu Yun Hao” as the registrant of the domain name. Complainant also alleges that Respondent has not registered the domain name as a trademark and that Complainant has not granted Respondent any license to use the TELEEYE mark. In M. Shanken Commc’ns v. WORLDTRAVELERSONLINE.COM, FA 740335 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 3, 2006), the panel found that respondent was not commonly known by the <cigaraficionada.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) based on the WHOIS information and other evidence in the record. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the <teleeyecctv.com> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
However, Complainant fails to provide evidence of Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name. Therefore, Complainant has failed to make a prima showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Complainant argues that Respondent will be using <teleeyecctv.com> for selling or otherwise transferring the domain name registration for valuable consideration.
Complainant contends that Respondent has registered the <teleeyecctv.com> domain name in order to prevent Complainant from reflecting its trademark and its goods in a corresponding domain name. Complainant asserts that Respondent registered the <teleeyecctv.com> domain name primarily for the purpose of unlawfully diluting the business of its competitors. Complainant contends that Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the website housed at <teleeyecctv.com> by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the website of Respondent and of the products and services on the website of Respondent. However, Respondent has not presented any evidence in support of its bad faith contentions. Therefore, Complainant has failed to show bad faith registration and use.
Complainant having not established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be DENIED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <teleeyecctv.com> domain name REMAIN WITH Respondent.
The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.), Panelist
Dated: September 25, 2013
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page