Twitch Interactive, Inc. v. Antonio Teggi
Claim Number: FA1506001626528
Complainant is Twitch Interactive, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Andrew VanArsdel of Seed Intellectual Property Law Group PLLC, Washington, USA. Respondent is Antonio Teggi (“Respondent”), Italy.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <twitcch.tv>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.
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 Forum electronically on June 29, 2015; the Forum received payment on June 29, 2015.
On June 30, 2015, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <twitcch.tv> 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 ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On July 1, 2015, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 21, 2015 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@twitcch.tv. Also on July 1, 2015, 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 Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On July 28, 2015, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Sandra J. Franklin 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 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 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
1. Respondent’s <twitcch.tv> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s TWITCH TV mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <twitcch.tv> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and uses the <twitcch.tv> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant uses its TWITCH and TWITCHTV marks for video and gaming services. Complainant has registered the TWITCH mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 4,275,948, registered January 15, 2013). Complainant has also registered the TWITCHTV mark with the USPTO (Reg. No. 4,087,877, registered January 17, 2012).
Respondent registered the <twitcch.tv> domain name on June 30, 2013, and uses it for pay-per-click hyperlinks related to Complainant and its business.
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 USPTO registration for its TWITCH TV mark demonstrates Complainant’s rights in the mark. Past panels have agreed that registrations with the USPTO suffice to demonstrate Complainant’s rights in the marks for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Bonds, FA 873143 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 16, 2007) (finding that a USPTO trademark registration adequately demonstrates a complainant’s rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)).
Respondent’s <twitcch.tv> domain name incorporates Complainant’s TWITCHTV mark and merely adds the letter “c” and a period between the words of the mark. Past panels have found confusing similarity where the disputed domain name was a common misspelling of a complainant’s mark. See Marriott Int'l, Inc. v. Seocho, FA 149187 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 28, 2003) (finding that the respondent's <marrriott.com> domain name was confusingly similar to the complainant's MARRIOTT mark). Panels have also found that the addition of punctuation, such as the addition of a period, is irrelevant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Mrs. World Pageants, Inc. v. Crown Promotions, FA 94321 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 24, 2000) (finding that punctuation is not significant in determining the similarity of a domain name and mark). Accordingly, the Panel finds that the <twitcch.tv> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s TWITCH TV mark.
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Once Complainant makes a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), 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.”).
Complainant argues that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and is not commonly known by the <twitcch.tv> domain name. Complainant states that Respondent does not have authorization to use its TWITCH TV mark in a domain name. The WHOIS information lists “Antonio Teggi” as the registrant. Consequently, the Panel finds no basis for finding that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Coppertown Drive-Thru Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 17, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <coppertown.com> domain name where there was no evidence in the record, including the WHOIS information, suggesting that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name).
Complainant argues that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to attract customers its pay-per-click website does not constitute 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). Past panels have found no bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) where a respondent used the disputed domain name to resolve to links displaying products and services which directly compete with complainant. See United Servs. Auto. Ass’n v. Savchenko, FA 1105728 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 12, 2007) (“The disputed domain name, <usaa-insurance.net>, currently resolves to a website displaying Complainant’s marks and contains links to Complainant’s competitors. The Panel finds this to be neither a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶4(c)(iii).”). Past panels have also found bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) where a respondent’s website features links to products and services unrelated to the complainant. See Constellation Wines U.S., Inc. v. Tex. Int’l Prop. Assocs., FA 948436 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 8, 2007) (finding that the respondent had no rights or legitimate interests under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or 4(c)(iii) by using the disputed domain name to operate a website featuring links to goods and services unrelated to the complainant). Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent has not provided 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) and Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Complainant asserts that Respondent registered the domain name at a time when Complainant’s Twitch service already had millions of users and was well-known, making it clear to Respondent that Complainant had rights in the TWITCH and TWITCHTV marks. The Panel agrees and finds that Respondent had actual notice of Complainant’s rights in the TWITCH TV mark, constituting bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Radio & Records, Inc. v. Nat’l Voiceover, FA 665235 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 9, 2006) (“The Panel also finds that there are reasonable grounds to infer that Respondent had actual notice of Complainant’s rights in the mark as well. Complainant’s Radio & Records Magazine is a leading business journal covering an industry towards which Respondent’s services are marketed. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent registered the <radioandrecordsmagazine.com> domain name despite having constructive and actual notice of Complainant’s rights in the RADIO & RECORDS mark. Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name with knowledge of Complainant’s rights is further evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”).
Respondent has also engaged in typosquatting by attempting to capitalize on a simple misspelling of Complainant’s mark. Thus, the Panel finds further bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Computerized Sec. Sys., Inc. v. Hu, FA 157321 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 23, 2003) (finding that the respondent engaged in typosquatting, which is evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)).
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <twitcch.tv> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist
Dated: August 3, 2015
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page