Dell Inc. v. Knowledge Internet Marketing Pvt.Ltd.
Claim Number: FA1602001659465
Complainant is Dell Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by S. Erik Combs of Pirkey Barber PLLC, Texas, USA. Respondent is Knowledge Internet Marketing Pvt.Ltd. (“Respondent”), India.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <dellsupport-center.com> and <dell-support.org>, 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.
The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.) as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on February 3, 2016; the Forum received payment on February 3, 2016.
On February 4, 2016, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <dellsupport-center.com> and <dell-support.org> domain names are registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. 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 February 4, 2016, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 24, 2016 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@dellsupport-center.com, postmaster@dell-support.org. Also on February 4, 2016, 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 March 1, 2016, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed the Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.) 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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant uses the DELL mark in connection with its business manufacturing and selling computers, computer accessories, and other computer-related products and services. Complainant sells its products and services in over 180 countries. Complainant has registered the DELL mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 1,860,272, registered October 25, 1994), which demonstrates its rights in its mark. The <dellsupport-center.com> and <dell-support.org> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark as they incorporate the famous DELL mark in its entirety and merely add the generic terms “center” and/or “support,” and the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com” or “.org.”
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names or Complainant’s mark. Nor is Respondent licensed or authorized to use Complainant’s mark. Respondent is not making a bona fide offering of goods or services through the disputed domain names or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, Respondent uses the disputed domain names to pass itself off as Complainant through the use of Complainant’s logo and pictures of Complainant’s products on its websites. After creating an association with Complainant, Respondent attempts to gather Internet users’ personal information through contact forms asking for visitors’ “Name,” “Email,” and “Phone Number,” presumably to sell this information to third parties.
Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent uses the disputed domain names to disrupt and compete with Complainant’s business while benefiting commercially. Respondent is engaged in a phishing scheme, whereby Respondent attempts to gather Internet users’ personal information after falsely creating an association with Complainant. Respondent registered the disputed domain names with actual knowledge of Complainant’s mark. Respondent is a serial cybersquatter as shown by a pattern of registrations and UDRP proceedings.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Dell Inc., uses the DELL mark in connection with its business manufacturing and selling computers, computer accessories, and other computer-related products and services. Complainant sells its products and services in over 180 countries. Complainant has rights in the DELL mark through registration with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 1,860,272, registered October 25, 1994). The <dellsupport-center.com> and <dell-support.org> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark as they incorporate the famous DELL mark in its entirety and merely add the generic terms “center” and/or “support,” and the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com” or “.org.”
Respondent, Knowledge Internet Marketing Pvt.Ltd., registered the <dellsupport-center.com> domain name on December 8, 2014 and the <dell-support.org> domain name on May 12, 2015. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. Respondent uses the disputed domain names to pass itself off as Complainant through the use of Complainant’s logo and pictures of Complainant’s products on its websites. After creating an association with Complainant, Respondent attempts to gather Internet users’ personal information through contact forms asking for visitors’ “Name,” “Email,” and “Phone Number,” presumably to sell this information to third parties. Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name 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(f), 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.”).
Complainant has rights the DELL mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through registration with the USPTO. See W.W. Grainger, Inc. v. Above.com Domain Privacy, FA 1334458 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 24, 2010) (stating that “the Panel finds that USPTO registration is sufficient to establish these [Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)] rights even when Respondent lives or operates in a different country.”).
The disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) as they incorporate the famous DELL mark in its entirety and merely add the generic terms “center” and/or “support,” and the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com” or “.org.”
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. Respondent is not commonly known by the <dellsupport-center.com> and <dell-support.org> domain names. Complainant has not licensed or authorized Respondent to use Complainant’s mark. The WHOIS information merely lists “Knowledge Internet Marketing Pvt. Ltd.” as registrant. See Tercent Inc. v. Lee Yi, FA 139720 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 10, 2003) (stating “nothing in [the respondent’s] WHOIS information implies that [the respondent] is ‘commonly known by’ the disputed domain name” as one factor in determining that Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) does not apply).
Respondent fails to provide a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii), because the resolving websites attempt to pass off as Complainant to promote a phishing scheme. Respondent makes extensive use of the DELL mark and attempts to copy the look and feel of Complainant’s website while seeking personal information from Internet users. See Blackstone TM L.L.C. v. Mita Irelant Ltd., FA 1314998 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 30, 2010) (“The Panel finds that Respondent’s attempt to “phish” for users’ personal information is neither a bona fide offering of goods and services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”).
Respondent registered the <dellsupport-center.com> and <dell-support.org> domain names in bad faith under the Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). In the instant case, Respondent registered two domain names. Also, Respondent has registered over 30 unrelated domain names containing other companies’ marks. See Harcourt, Inc. v. Fadness, FA 95247 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 8, 2000) (finding that one instance of registration of several infringing domain names satisfies the burden imposed by the Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii)).
Respondent uses the confusingly similar domain names to intentionally attract Internet users to its own websites for commercial gain through a phishing scheme. A respondent’s use of a disputed domain name to host a website that offers similar products and services offered by a complainant constitutes bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Velva, LLC v. AAE, FA 677922 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 25, 2006) (finding that the respondent’s use of the <arizonashuttle.net> domain name, which contained the complainant’s ARIZONA SHUTTLE mark, to attract Internet traffic to the respondent’s website offering competing travel services violated Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)). Therefore, Respondent engaged in bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
Respondent is engaged in a phishing scheme, whereby Respondent attempts to gather Internet users’ personal information after falsely creating an association with Complainant. Therefore, Respondent has engaged in bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Wells Fargo & Co. v. Maniac State, FA 608239 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 19, 2006) (finding bad faith registration and use where the respondent was using the <wellsbankupdate.com> domain name in order to fraudulently acquire the personal and financial information of the complainant’s customers).
Respondent registered the <dellsupport-center.com> and <dell-support.org> domain names with actual knowledge of Complainant’s DELL mark. Therefore, Respondent registered the domain names in bad faith mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See 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).
Complainant having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <dellsupport-center.com> and <dell-support.org> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.), Panelist
Dated: March 14, 2016
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page