Lenovo (Beijing) Limited Corporation China v. Bogus User
Claim Number: FA1410001586449
Complainant is Lenovo (Beijing) Limited Corporation China (“Complainant”), represented by CitizenHawk, Inc., California, USA. Respondent is Bogus User (“Respondent”), California, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <lenovp.com>, registered with OMNIS NETWORK, 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.
David E. Sorkin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on October 23, 2014; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on October 23, 2014.
On October 27, 2014, OMNIS NETWORK, LLC (“OMNIS”) confirmed by email to the National Arbitration Forum that the <lenovp.com> domain name is registered with OMNIS. OMNIS stated that it was the owner of the domain name as a result of a disputed payment, and offered to delete the registration. The Forum instructed OMNIS to maintain the status quo and confirm the registrant’s contact information. OMNIS responded by supplying the following contact information for the registrant:
Bogus User
123 First Ave
Hollywood, CA 90210
US
+1.9999999999
bogus@user.com
OMNIS has verified that Respondent is bound by the OMNIS 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 4, 2014, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of November 24, 2014 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via email to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@lenovp.com. Also on November 4, 2014, 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 December 3, 2014, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed David E. Sorkin 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 is a large global corporation that makes personal computers. Complainant’s LENOVO mark is registered in the United States and other countries throughout the world. Complainant contends, with supporting arguments and evidence, that the disputed domain name <lenovp.com> is confusingly similar to its mark; that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name; and that the domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and has been used in bad faith.
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.”).
Furthermore, based upon Complainant’s submission, the correspondence received from the registrar of the disputed domain name (including the identification of a presumably fictitious Respondent), and the fact that the domain name itself appears to be an obvious example of “typosquatting,” there is no meaningful dispute before the Panel. Accordingly, the Panel considers it appropriate to order that the domain name be transferred to Complainant as requested, without engaging in a specific analysis of the elements set forth in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. See Sony Corp. v. Isaac Fong, FA 1532384 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 2, 2014) (ordering transfer without specific analysis of paragraph 4(a) elements, where respondent did not contest allegations and offered to relinquish domain name).
Having considered the elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <lenovp.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
David E. Sorkin, Panelist
Dated: December 4, 2014
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page