Microsoft Corporation v. Rafik Nageub / A TU
Claim Number: FA1707001739237
Complainant is Microsoft Corporation (“Complainant”), represented by Molly Buck Richard of Richard Law Group, Inc., Texas, USA. Respondent is Rafik Nageub / A TU (“Respondent”), Canada.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names here at issue are <microsoftkeystores.com> and <microsoftkeyshops.com>, both 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.
Terry F. Peppard as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on July 10, 2017; the Forum received payment on July 10, 2017.
On July 11, 2017; Jul 12, 2017, Godaddy.Com, Llc confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <microsoftkeystores.com> and <microsoftkeyshops.com> domain names are 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 13, 2017, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 11, 2017 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 the attention of postmaster@microsoftkeystores.com and postmaster@microsoftkeyshops.com. Also on July 13, 2017, 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.
A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on August 2, 2017.
On August 7, 2017, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Terry F. Peppard as sole Panelist in this proceeding.
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.
Complainant requests that the domain names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant, operating under the MICROSOFT mark, is a worldwide leader in the development and marketing of computer software and related services.
Complainant holds a registration for the MICROSOFT mark, which is on file with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) as Registry No. 2,198,155, registered October 20, 1998.
Respondent registered the domain names <microsoftkeystores.com> and <microsoftkeyshops.com> on March 17, 2016, and December 20, 2016, respectively.
The domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s MICROSOFT mark.
Respondent has not been commonly known by the either of the domain names.
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use the MICROSOFT mark.
Respondent also does not use the domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.
Rather, Respondent uses the domain names to resolve to websites that purport to sell product keys for Complainant’s products, which are in fact counterfeit.
Respondent also uses the domain names to market and sell product keys for third-party products unrelated to Complainant.
Respondent’s use of the domain names is likely to mislead Internet users as to the possibility of Respondent’s affiliation with Complainant.
Respondent employs the domain names in an attempt to pass itself off as Complainant in the Internet marketplace.
Respondent has neither any rights to nor any legitimate interests in either of the domain names.
Respondent displays at its resolving website false statements to the effect that it is an authorized retailer of Complainant.
Respondent knew of Complainant and its rights in the MICROSOFT mark when it registered the domain names.
Respondent registered and uses the domain names in bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent asserts that he did not register the disputed domain names, and that someone unknown to him impersonated him when registering them.
In his Response to the Complaint filed in this proceeding, the named Respondent has recited as follows:
Please take the appropriate actions to remove my name and my address from this domain as I have not any connection to this domain or services.
DISCUSSION
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that, in the ordinary course, Complainant must prove each of the following in order to obtain from a Panel an order that a domain name be transferred:
i. the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights;
ii. Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
iii. the domain name has been registered and is being used by Respondent in bad faith.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (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.”
DECISION
It appears from the record that Respondent does not contest the material allegations of the Complaint, except as to its identity as a proper party to this proceeding. It further appears that Respondent does not object to Complainant’s request for the transfer to it of the subject domain names as prayed for in the Complaint, so that the parties have tacitly agreed to the transfer of the subject domain names from Respondent to Complainant without the need for further proceedings. In the exceptional circumstances here presented, we conclude that no worthwhile purpose would be served by a rendition of findings otherwise customary in proceedings of this sort.
Accordingly, it is hereby Ordered that the contested <microsoftkeystores.com> and <microsoftkeyshops.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED forthwith from Respondent to Complainant.
Terry F. Peppard, Panelist
Dated: August 15, 2017
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page