Thomson Reuters v. shasha zhu
Claim Number: FA1510001640944
Complainant is Thomson Reuters (“Complainant”), represented by Alexandre A. Montagu of MontaguLaw, P.C., United States. Respondent is shasha zhu (“Respondent”), China.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <thomsoncorporate.com>, 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.
Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on October 5, 2015; the Forum received payment on October 5, 2015.
On October 6, 2015, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <thomsoncorporate.com> 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 October 7, 2015, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of October 27, 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@thomsoncorporate.com. Also on October 7, 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 November 2, 2015, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Paul M. DeCicco 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
Complainant contends as follows:
Complainant is the world’s leading source of information for businesses and professionals in the fields of finance, law, tax and accounting, science, and media. Complainant has been in existence since the nineteenth century.
Complainant has registered the THOMSON mark with the United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office (“UKIPO”) (Reg. No. UK00001403626, registered July 24, 1992) and the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 3,900,822, registered January 4, 2011) and other registries worldwide, which demonstrates its rights in its mark.
The <thomsoncorporate.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark as it wholly incorporates Complainant’s mark and merely adds the generic term “corporate” and the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.”
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent does not come within any of the provisions of paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, and is not authorized to use Complainant’s mark. Respondent is not making a bona fide offering of goods or services through the disputed domain name or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, Respondent uses the disputed domain name to redirect Internet users to Complainant’s website, <thomsonreuters.com>,and to distribute malware to Internet users.
Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. First, Respondent uses the disputed domain name to redirect Internet users as a part of a scheme to distribute malware. Second, Respondent uses the disputed domain name to redirect Internet users to the Complainant’s website. Finally, Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s mark.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant has rights in the THOMSON mark through its registration of such mark with the USPTO.
Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and had not been authorized to use Complainant’s trademark in any capacity.
Respondent registered the at‑issue domain name after Complainant acquired rights in its relevant trademarks.
Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to redirect Internet users to Complainant’s website and to distribute malware to Internet users.
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 at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.
Complainant’s ownership of USPTO trademark and UKIPO registrations for the THOMSON trademark as well Complainant’s numerous other registrations of the mark worldwide each demonstrate Complainant’s rights in the THOMSON mark for the purposes of Policy ¶4(a)(i). See Royal Bank of Scot. Group plc v. Soloviov, FA 787983 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 3, 2006) (“Complainant’s trademark registrations for the NATWEST mark with the United Kingdom Patent Office . . . establish Complainant’s rights in the mark pursuant to Policy ¶4(a)(i).”); see also, Microsoft Corp. v. Burkes, FA 652743 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 17, 2006) (“Complainant has established rights in the MICROSOFT mark through registration of the mark with the USPTO.”). Complainant’s rights exist notwithstanding that Respondent may operate outside the jurisdiction of the trademark’s registrar. See, Koninklijke KPN N.V. v. Telepathy Inc., D2001-0217 (WIPO May 7, 2001) (finding that the Policy does not require that the mark be registered in the country in which the respondent operates; therefore it is sufficient that the complainant can demonstrate a mark in some jurisdiction).
The <thomsoncorporate.com> domain name incorporates Complainant’s THOMSON trademark in its entirety, adds the generic term “corporate” and appends the gTLD “.com” thereto. However, the differences between Respondent’s domain name and Complainant’s trademark are ineffective in distinguishing one from the other for the purposes of the Policy. Therefore the Panel finds that the at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Am. Express Co. v. MustNeed.com, FA 257901 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 7, 2004) (finding the respondent’s <amextravel.com> domain name confusingly similar to Complainant’s AMEX mark because the “mere addition of a generic or descriptive word to a registered mark does not negate” a finding of confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)); see also, Trip Network Inc. v. Alviera, FA 914943 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 27, 2007) (concluding that the affixation of a gTLD to a domain name is irrelevant to a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis).
Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 18, 2006). Since Respondent failed to respond, absent evidence of Policy ¶4(c) circumstances Complainant’s prima facie showing acts conclusively.
Respondent lacks both rights and legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant’s trademark in any capacity and, as discussed below, there are no Policy ¶4(c) circumstances from which the Panel might find that Respondent has rights or interests in respect of the at-issue domain name.
WHOIS information for the <thomsoncorporate.com> domain name lists “Shasha Zhu” as the domain name’s registrant and there is nothing in the record that otherwise suggests Respondent is commonly known by the <thomsoncorporate.com> domain name. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Compagnie de Saint Gobain v. Com-Union Corp., D2000-0020 (WIPO Mar. 14, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interest where the respondent was not commonly known by the mark and never applied for a license or permission from the complainant to use the trademarked name).
Respondent uses the disputed domain name to redirect Internet users to Complainant’s website and to distribute malware. Using the domain name in this manner is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Direct Line Ins. plc v. Low-cost-domain, FA 1337658 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 8, 2010) (“The Panel finds that using Complainant’s mark in a domain name over which Complainant has no control, even if the domain name redirects to Complainant’s actual site, is not consistent with the requirements of Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or ¶ 4(c)(iii) . . .”); see also, Ceridian Corp. v. Versata Software, Inc., FA 1259927 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 23, 2009) (finding that a respondent’s use of a disputed domain name to direct Internet users to a website which attempts to download computer viruses “failed to create any semblance of a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)”).
Given the forgoing, Complainant satisfies its initial burden under Policy ¶4(a)(ii) and conclusively demonstrates Respondent’s lack of rights and lack of interests in respect of the at-issue domain name.
The domain name was registered and used in bad faith. As discussed below, bad faith circumstances are present which compel the Panel to conclude that Respondent acted in bad faith pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
First, as mentioned above Respondent uses the domain name to redirect Internet users as a part of a scheme to distribute malware. Using the domain name in this manner clearly indicates Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the <thomsoncorporate.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Victoria’s Secret Stores Brand Mgmt., Inc. v. PrivacyProtect.org, FA 1357512 (Nat. Arb. Forum December 17, 2010) (finding that a domain name attracting Internet users to a resolving website that attempts to download malicious software onto their computers to steal personal information “indicates bad faith registration and use according to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)”).
Next, as also mentioned above, Respondent’s used the confusingly similar at-issue domain name to redirect Internet users to Complainant’s own website at <thomsonreuters.com> thereby further demonstrating Respondent’s bad faith. See Verizon Trademark Servs. LLC v. Boyiko, FA 1382148 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 12, 2011) (“The Panel finds that Respondent’s registration and use of the confusingly similar disputed domain name, even where it resolves to Complainant’s own site, is still registration and use in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”).
Finally, Respondent registered the <thomsoncorporate.com> domain name knowing that Complainant had trademark rights in the THOMSON mark. Respondent’s prior knowledge is evident from the notoriety of Complainant’s trademark and Respondent’s redirection of the domain name to address Complainant’s own website. Given the forgoing, it is clear that Respondent intentionally registered the at-issue domain name to improperly exploit its trademark value, rather than for some benign reason. Respondent’s prior knowledge of Complainant's trademark additionally indicates that Respondent registered and used the <thomsoncorporate.com> domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent had "actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name").
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <thomsoncorporate.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist
Dated: November 9, 2015
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page