McDermott Will & Emery LLP v. wang wei
Claim Number: FA1610001699686
Complainant is McDermott Will & Emery LLP (“Complainant”), represented by Lynne M. J. Boisineau of McDermott Will & Emery LLP, California, USA. Respondent is wang wei (“Respondent”), China.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <mwe.pub>, registered with Chengdu West Dimension Digital Technology Co., Ltd.
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 October 24, 2016; the Forum received payment on October 24, 2016. The Complaint was received in both English and Chinese.
On October 26, 2016, Chengdu West Dimension Digital Technology Co., Ltd. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <mwe.pub> domain name is registered with Chengdu West Dimension Digital Technology Co., Ltd. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Chengdu West Dimension Digital Technology Co., Ltd. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Chengdu West Dimension Digital Technology Co., Ltd. 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 31, 2016, the Forum served the Chinese language Complaint and all Annexes, including a Chinese language Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of November 21, 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 email@example.com. Also on October 31, 2016, 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 Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On November 22, 2016, 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.
Pursuant to Rule 11(a), the Panel finds that the language requirement has been satisfied through the Chinese language Complaint and Commencement Notification, and determines that the remainder of the proceedings will be conducted in English.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
1. Respondent’s <mwe.pub> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s MWE mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <mwe.pub> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and uses the <mwe.pub> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant has registered its MWE mark with the trademark authorities of both the United States of America (USPTO Registration No. 2,359,617, registered June 20, 2000) and China (SAIC Registry No. 5,865,528, registered January 28, 2010). Complainant uses the mark to provide legal services and related training services and publications.
Respondent registered the <mwe.pub> domain name on May 31, 2016, and fails to make an active use of the domain name.
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 (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 registrations of the MWE mark in the US and in China establish its rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Guess? IP Holder L.P. and Guess?, Inc. v. zhou hong hai, FA 1610066 (Forum May 1, 2015) (determining that “Complainant’s USPTO and SAIC registrations are sufficient to establish Complainant’s rights in the GUESS mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”).
Respondent’s <mwe.pub> includes Complainant’s MWE mark and simply adds the “.pub” TLD. The addition of “.pub” contributes to the likely confusion because Complainant offers a wide range of legal publications. See DD IP Holder LLC v. Manpreet Badhwar, FA 1562029 (Forum July 14, 2014) (holding that the addition of the new “.menu” gTLD combined with the “dunkin” element adds to the confusing character of the domain at issue.); see also Dell Inc. v. Protection of Private Person / Privacy Protection, FA 1681432 (Forum Aug. 1, 2016) (“A TLD (whether a gTLD, sTLD or ccTLD) is disregarded under a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis because domain name syntax requires TLDs. Likewise, the absence of spaces must be disregarded under a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis because domain name syntax prohibits them.”). Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent’s <mwe.pub> is confusingly similar to Complainant’s MWE 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 (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 (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 <mwe.pub>. Complainant states that there is no affiliation between Complainant and Respondent, and Respondent is not otherwise commonly known by <mwe.pub>. The Panel notes that WHOIS lists “wang wei” as the registrant of the <mwe.pub> domain name. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Alaska Air Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines v. Song Bin, FA1408001574905 (Forum Sept. 17, 2014) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name as demonstrated by the WHOIS information and based on the fact that the complainant had not licensed or authorized the respondent to use its ALASKA AIRLINES mark).
Further, Complainant argues that Respondent has not used the domain name for any purpose, evincing no bona fide offering of goods or services or any legitimate noncommercial or fair use. The Panel finds that there is no use of the disputed domain name, and thus no basis for a bona fide offering of goods or services or any legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See Bloomberg L.P. v. SC Media Servs. & Info. SRL, FA 296583 (Forum Sept. 2, 2004) (“Respondent is wholly appropriating Complainant’s mark and is not using the <bloomberg.ro> domain name in connection with an active website. The Panel finds that the [failure to make an active use] of a domain name that is identical to Complainant’s mark is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and it is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”).
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Complainant argues that Respondent’s inactive holding of the domain for several months imputes bad faith registration and use, especially because Respondent likely had actual and/or constructive knowledge of Complainant and its mark due to the well-known status of Complainant’s mark. In the absence of any arguments or evidence to the contrary, the Panel agrees and finds bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Am. Broad. Cos., Inc. v. Sech, FA 893427 (Forum Feb. 28, 2007) (concluding that the respondent’s failure to make active use of its domain name in the three months after its registration indicated that the respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith).
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 <mwe.pub> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist
Dated: November 29, 2016
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page