Broadcom Corporation, a California corporation v. shenzhen / billy
Claim Number: FA1311001528945
Complainant is Broadcom Corporation, a California corporation (“Complainant”), represented by Susan M. Natland of Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP, California, USA. Respondent is shenzhen / billy (“Respondent”), China.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <botong-ic.com>, registered with Xin Net Technology Corporation.
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 Honourable Neil Anthony Brown QC as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on November 7, 2013; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on November 7, 2013. The Complaint was received in both Chinese and English.
On November 11, 2013, Xin Net Technology Corporation confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <botong-ic.com> domain name is registered with Xin Net Technology Corporation and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Xin Net Technology Corporation has verified that Respondent is bound by the Xin Net Technology Corporation 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 November 18, 2013, the Forum served the Chinese language Complaint and all Annexes, including a Chinese language Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of December 9, 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@botong-ic.com. Also on November 18, 2013, the Chinese language 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 December 17, 2013, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed The Honourable Neil Anthony Brown QC 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
Complainant makes the following contentions:
1. Complainant is a Fortune 500 Company founded in 1991. Complainant conducts business as a semiconductor vendor in most major cities around the world including major Chinese cities such as Shenzen, Dalian, Shanghai, and Beijing.
2. Complainant has rights in the BROADCOM mark as evidenced by its continuous use of the name in correlation with its semiconductor and integrated circuit products since 1994, as well as through its registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) and with the Chinese State Intellectual Property Office (“SIPO”):
a. USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 2,132,930 registered January 27, 1998).
b. SIPO (e.g., Reg. No. 1,321,169 registered October 7, 1999).
3. Additionally, Complainant registered a Chinese version of its trade name pronounced “mei shang botong.”
4. Respondent’s <botong-ic.com> domain name includes the pinyin phonetic translation for Complainant’s BROADCOM mark in its entirety.
a. Respondent adds the term “ic” which is merely a generic abbreviation for “integrated circuits” which is a key product offered by complainant.
b. The “BOTONG” in the disputed domain name is identical to the pinyin version of the Complainant’s translated trademark BROADCOM in Chinese.
5. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <botong-ic.com> domain name.
a. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name.
i. Respondent is not authorized or licensed to use Complainant’s BROADCOM mark.
ii. Respondent’s company name is “Billy”, and Respondent’s organization is listed as “shenzhen.”
b. Respondent is not making a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name.
i. Respondent’s disputed domain name leads to a Chinese website for a Chinese company impersonating Complainant and pretending to be an authorized agent of Complainant.
ii. Respondent’s resolving website contains an unauthorized translation of Complainant’s website, including use of the same images and text.
iii. Respondent is attempting to pass itself off as Complainant.
6. Respondent registered and is using the <botong-ic.com> domain name in bad faith.
a. Respondent, under the previous registrant name “Shen Zhen Nanhuang Electronics Co. Ltd/ Marvin,” has a pattern of registering domain names incorporating Complainant’s marks.
i. Complainant believes that Respondent is the same respondent that was involved in a prior domain name complaint action successfully brought by Complainant regarding the <broadcom-ic.com> domain name. See Broadcom Corporation v. shen zhen nanhuang electronics co. ltd/ Marvin, FA 1491289 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 7, 2013).
ii. Respondent also has a pattern of registering domain names incorporating third-party marks.
b. Respondent uses the disputed domain name to divert Internet traffic away from Complainant and to Respondent.
c. Respondent is attempting to attract Internet users to its website for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s BROADCOM mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s website.
d. Respondent was aware of Complainant and its BROADCOM trademark prior to registering the disputed domain name. Respondent uses Complainant’s logo and references Complainant and its business as well as its products.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
1. Complainant is a United States company that conducts business as a semiconductor vendor in most major cities around the world including major Chinese cities.
2. Complainant has trademark registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) and with the Chinese State Intellectual Property Office (“SIPO”) for trademarks including
a. USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 2,132,930 registered January 27, 1998).
b. SIPO (e.g., Reg. No. 1,321,169 registered October 7, 1999).
3. Respondent registered the <botong-ic.com> domain name on June 14, 2013.
4. The disputed domain name leads to a Chinese website for a Chinese company impersonating Complainant and pretending to be an authorized agent of Complainant.
LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS
The Pane notes that the Registration Agreement is written in Chinese, thereby making the language of the proceedings in Chinese. Pursuant to Rule 11(a), the Panel determines that the language requirement has been satisfied through the Chinese language Complaint and Commencement Notification, and, absent a Response, determines that the remainder of the proceedings may be conducted in English.
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 first question that arises is whether Complainant has rights in a trademark or service mark. Complainant states that it is a Fortune 500 Company founded in 1991 conducting business as a semiconductor vendor in most major cities around the world including major Chinese cities such as Shenzen, Dalian, Shanghai, and Beijing. Complainant asserts that it has rights in the BROADCOM mark as evidenced by its continuous use of the name in correlation with its semiconductor and integrated circuit products since 1994, as well as through its registrations with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 2,132,930 registered January 27, 1998) and with the Chinese SIPO (e.g., Reg. No. 1,321,169 registered October 7, 1999). See Complainant’s Annex 10. Complainant further contends that it registered a Chinese version of its trade name pronounced “mei shang botong.” Previous panels have found that providing evidence of a registration for a trademark with a recognized trademark authority is sufficient to establish rights in a given trademark. See Digi-Key Corp. v. Bei jing ju zhong cheng dian zi ji shu you xian gong si, FA 1213758 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 1, 2008) (“The Panel finds these registrations [with the USPTO and SAIC] sufficiently establish Complainant’s rights in its DIGI-KEY mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”). The Panel concludes that Complainant has rights in the BROADCOM mark through its registrations with the USPTO and SAIC under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
The next question that arises is whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s BROADCOM mark. Complainant contends that Respondent’s <botong-ic.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s BROADCOM mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Complainant explains that the translation of Complainant’s BROADCOM mark into Chinese characters has the pinyin version “botong.” Additionally, Complainant states that the “BOTONG” in the disputed domain name is identical to the pinyin version of the Complainant’s translated trademark BROADCOM in Chinese. Complainant claims that Respondent adds the term “ic” which is merely a generic abbreviation for “integrated circuits” which is a key product offered by Complainant. See Complainant’s Annex 14. Previous panels have found that a domain name may be confusingly similar to a complainant’s mark if the trademark and the domain name contain words of different languages. See Disney Enters., Inc. v. Artmidia Comunicacao Visual Criacao E Arte Ltda., FA 603590 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 16, 2006) (“The term “disneylandia” is the Portuguese translation of the DISNEYLAND mark, and Complainant holds such a trademark for this term in Brazil. Therefore, the <disneylandia.com> and <disneylandia.net> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark.”). Previous panels have further found that adding abbreviations for generic terms, such as “ic” in the present dispute, does not distinguish a disputed domain name from a given mark. See Victoria’s Secret v. Plum Promotions, FA 96503 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 27, 2001) (“The mere addition of the generic term “tv” does not reduce the likelihood of confusion under Policy 4(a)(i).”). The Panel notes that Respondent also adds a hyphen and the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.” Prior panels have concluded on multiple occasions that adding hyphens and a gTLD are insufficient variations to differentiate a disputed domain name from a given mark. See 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); see also Pep Boys Manny, Moe, and Jack v. E-Commerce Today, Ltd., AF-0145 (eResolution May 3, 2000) (finding that a hyphen between words of the complainant’s registered mark is confusingly similar). The Panel therefore concludes that Respondent’s <botong-ic.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s BROADCOM mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant has thus made out the first of the three elements that it must establish.
It is now well established that 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); see also AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 25, 2006) (“Complainant must first make a prima facie showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names, which burden is light. If Complainant satisfies its burden, then the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain names.”).
The Panel finds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case that arises from the following considerations:
(a)Respondent has chosen to take Complainant’s BROADCOM trademark and to use it in its domain name, as the Chinese characters for the word have the pinyin version “botong” and the “botong” in the domain name is identical to the pinyin version of the Complainant’s translated trademark BROADCOM in Chinese; only the expression “ic” has been added which suggests that the service being offered to the user of the domain name, namely integrated circuits, is the service provided by Complainant;
(b) Respondent has used the disputed domain name to divert Internet traffic away from Complainant and to Respondent;
(c) Respondent has engaged in these activities without the consent or approval of Complainant;
(d)Complainant argues that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <botong-ic.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). Complainant states that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name because Respondent is not authorized or licensed to use Complainant’s BROADCOM mark. Complainant additionally points out that Respondent’s company name is “Billy,” and Respondent’s organization is listed as “shenzhen.” Previous panels have found that a Respondent is not commonly known by a disputed domain name where there is no evidence on the record or anywhere else indicating that there is a relationship between respondent and the disputed domain name. See Reese v. Morgan, FA 917029 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 5, 2007) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <lilpunk.com> domain name as there was no evidence in the record showing that the respondent was commonly known by that domain name, including the WHOIS information as well as the complainant’s assertion that it did not authorize or license the respondent’s use of its mark in a domain name). The Panel concludes that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name because Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii);
(e)Complainant additionally alleges that Respondent is not making a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or ¶ 4(c)(iii). Complainant argues that Respondent’s disputed domain name leads to a Chinese website for a Chinese company impersonating Complainant and pretending to be an authorized agent of Complainant. Complainant further claims that Respondent’s resolving website contains an unauthorized translation of Complainant’s website, including use of the same images and text. See Annex 9. Complainant then draws the inference that Respondent is attempting to pass itself off as Complainant. Previous panels have concluded that using a confusingly similar domain name to resolve to a website that attempts to pass itself off as the complainant is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. See Kmart of Mich., Inc. v. Cone, FA 655014 (Nat. Arb. Forum April 25, 2006) (The panel found the respondent’s attempt to pass itself of as 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) when the respondent used the disputed domain name to present users with a website that was nearly identical to the complainant’s website). The Panel thus concludes that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or ¶ 4(c)(iii).
All of these matters go to make out the prima facie case against Respondent. As Respondent has not filed a Response or attempted by any other means to rebut the prima facie case against it, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Complainant has thus made out the second of the three elements that it must establish.
It is clear that to establish bad faith for the purposes of the Policy, Complainant must show that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith and has been used in bad faith. It is also clear that the criteria set out in Policy ¶ 4(b) for establishing bad faith are not exclusive, but that Complainants in UDRP proceedings may also rely on conduct that is bad faith within the generally accepted meaning of that expression.
Having regard to those principles, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith. That is so for the following reasons.
First, Complainant alleges that Respondent has a pattern of registering domain names incorporating Complainant’s marks under the previous registrant name, “Shen Zhen Nanhuang Electronics Co. Ltd/ Marvin.” Specifically, Complainant points to the prior case of Broadcom Corporation v. shen zhen nanhuang electronics co. ltd/ Marvin, FA 1491289 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 7, 2013), in which a previous panel ordered the transfer of the <broadcom-ic.com> domain name from the respondent “shen zen nanhuang electronics co. ltd/ Marvin” to Complainant. See Annex 6. To support its contention that Respondent in the instant proceedings is the same as the respondent in the Broadcom Corporation, supra case, Complainant submits Annex 7, which compares the website resolving from the disputed <botong-ic.com> domain name and the website that resolved from the <broadcom-ic.com> domain name. The Panel concludes from Annex 7 that the two websites are identical, and may thus reasonably infer that Respondent previously registered the infringing <broadcom-ic.com> domain name that was ultimately transferred to Complainant. The Panel notes that it has previously been held that a respondent demonstrates a pattern of bad faith domain name registrations under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii) by registering multiple domain names that infringe on the complainant’s mark. See, e.g., Albertson's, Inc. v. Bennett, FA 117013 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 5, 2002) (finding bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii) in the respondent’s registration of the <albertsonscoupons.com> and <albertsons-coupons.com> domain names because the respondent “registered the domain names in order to prevent Complainant from registering its common law ALBERTSON’S COUPON mark in a corresponding domain name”). It has also been held that a respondent demonstrates a pattern of bad faith domain name registrations where the respondent has been subject to a prior adverse UDRP proceeding. See Arai Helmet Americas, Inc. v. Goldmark, D2004-1028 (WIPO Jan. 22, 2005) (finding that “Respondent has registered the disputed domain name, <aria.com>, to prevent Complainant from registering it” and taking notice of another UDRP proceeding against the respondent to find that “this is part of a pattern of such registrations”). Therefore, the Panel holds that Respondent has demonstrated a pattern of bad faith domain name registrations under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii), which is evidence of Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the <botong-ic.com> domain name in the instant proceedings.
Secondly, Complainant next suggests that Respondent uses the disputed domain name to divert Internet traffic away from Complainant and to Respondent, and has thus demonstrated bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). Specifically, Complainant argues that the disputed domain name resolves to a Chinese website for a Chinese company impersonating Complainant and pretending to be an authorized agent of Complainant. See Annex 9. Complainant further claims that Respondent’s resolving website contains an unauthorized translation of Complainant’s website, including the use of the same images and text. See id. The Panel notes that previous panels have held that a respondent demonstrates bad faith disruption under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) where the disputed domain name resolves to a website in which the respondent attempts to impersonate the complainant. See Artistic Pursuit LLC v. calcuttawebdevelopers.com, FA 894477 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 8, 2007) (finding that the respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name, which displayed a website virtually identical to the complainant’s website, constituted bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)). Therefore, as the Panel accepts Complainant’s contention that Respondent is using the <botong-ic.com> domain name to impersonate Complainant, the Panel holds that this use of the disputed domain name is disruptive of Complainant’s business and that Respondent has demonstrated bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).
Thirdly, Complainant further alleges that Respondent is attempting to attract Internet users to its website for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s BROADCOM mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s website. The Panel notes that previous panels have found that a respondent demonstrates bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the disputed domain name creates a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark and the respondent is commercially profiting from this confusion. See, e.g., Perot Sys. Corp. v. Perot.net, FA 95312 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 29, 2000) (finding bad faith where the domain name in question is obviously connected with the complainant’s well-known marks, thus creating a likelihood of confusion strictly for commercial gain). The Panel also notes that in Identigene, Inc. v. Genetest Labs., D2000-1100 (WIPO Nov. 30, 2000), the panel found that the respondent demonstrated bad faith Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the domain name at issue resolved to a website that offered services similar to those offered by the complainant and was likely to confuse Internet users into believing that the complainant was the source or sponsor of the services offered at the site. Here, the Panel recalls that the disputed domain name allegedly resolves to a Chinese website for a Chinese company which impersonates Complainant and contains an unauthorized translation of Complainant’s website, including the use of the same images and text. See Annex 9. The Panel concludes that here, as in Identigene, supra, Respondent is using the disputed domain name to offer services that directly compete with those offered by Complainant under its BROADCOM mark, and to mislead Internet users into believing that Complainant is a sponsor of Respondent’s website. Furthermore, the Panel holds that as in Perot Sys. Corp., supra, the disputed domain name itself is likely to lead to confusion with Complainant’s BROADCOM mark, since the <botong-ic.com> domain name includes the pinyin phonetic translation for Complainant’s BROADCOM mark in its entirety. Therefore, the Panel holds that Respondent has demonstrated bad faith registration and use of the <botong-ic.com> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
Fourthly, Complainant contends that Respondent attempts to pass itself off as Complainant in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). Complainant argues that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name infringes on Complainant’s logo and makes reference to Complainant’s CEO along with providing information regarding Complainant’s products and company. Complainant alleges that Respondent’s resolving website is a direct translation of Complainant’s website. Complainant further claims that Respondent uses the same images and text as Complianant has featured on Complainant’s official website. See Annex 9. Previous panels have found bad faith passing off where a respondent uses a disputed domain name to reproduce a website that copies a complainant’s website in an attempt to misrepresent itself as the complainant. See Am. Int’l Group, Inc. v. Busby, FA 156251 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 30, 2003) (finding that the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith where the respondent hosted a website that “duplicated Complainant’s mark and logo, giving every appearance of being associated or affiliated with Complainant’s business . . . to perpetrate a fraud upon individual shareholders who respected the goodwill surrounding the AIG mark”). The Panel agrees, and finds that Respondent registered and is using the <botong-ic.com> domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Fifthly, Complainant alleges that Respondent was aware of Complainant and its BROADCOM trademark prior to registering the disputed domain name, which is further evidence of Respondent’s bad under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). The Panel notes that it has previously been held that a respondent demonstrates bad faith registration and use of a disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) by registering the disputed domain name with actual notice of the complainant’s rights in the appropriated mark. See, e.g., Yahoo! Inc. v. Butler, FA 744444 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 17, 2006) (finding bad faith where the respondent was “well-aware” of the complainant’s YAHOO! mark at the time of registration). Previous panels have inferred that a respondent had such actual notice of the complainant’s rights where there is a clear link between the complainant’s mark and the content promoted on the disputed domain name’s resolving website. See, e.g., Pfizer, Inc. v. Suger, D2002-0187 (WIPO Apr. 24, 2002) (finding that because the link between the complainant’s mark and the content advertised on the respondent’s website was obvious, the respondent “must have known about the Complainant’s mark when it registered the subject domain name”). In the instant proceedings, Complainant alleges that the at-issue website displays Complainant’s logo and references products offered by Complainant under the BROADCOM mark. See Annex 9. The Panel thus concludes that here, as in Pfizer, supra, there is an obvious link between Complainant’s mark and the content displayed on website resolving from the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the Panel infers that Respondent registered the <botong-ic.com> domain name with actual notice of Complainant’s rights in the BROADCOM mark, which is further evidence of Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Sixthly, in addition and having regard to the totality of the evidence, the Panel finds that, in view of Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name using the BROADCOM mark in its Chinese equivalent and in view of the conduct that Respondent has engaged in when using the domain name, Respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith within the generally accepted meaning of that expression.
Complainant has thus made out the third of the three elements that it must establish.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <botong-ic.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
The Honourable Neil Anthony Brown QC
Panelist
Dated: December 19, 2013
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page