Teledyne Technologies Incorporated v. aidengweizidonghuaxitongshebeishanghaiyouxiangongsi
Claim Number: FA1707001740719
Complainant is Teledyne Technologies Incorporated (“Complainant”), represented by Mary Dalton Baril of McGuire Woods LLP, Virginia, USA. Respondent is aidengweizidonghuaxitongshebeishanghaiyouxiangongsi (“Respondent”), People’s Republic of China.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <teledyne-china.com>, registered with 35 Technology Co., Ltd.
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.
Darryl C. Wilson, as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on July 19, 2017; the Forum received payment on July 19, 2017. “The Complaint was submitted in both Chinese and English.”
On July 20, 2017, 35 Technology Co., Ltd. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <teledyne-china.com> domain name is registered with 35 Technology Co., Ltd. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. 35 Technology Co., Ltd. has verified that Respondent is bound by the 35 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 July 26, 2017, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Chinese language Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 15, 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 postmaster@teledyne-china.com. Also on July 26, 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.
Having received no response from Respondent, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On August 17, 2017, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Darryl C. Wilson, 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 is a global corporation that provides advanced technology and engineering goods and services. Complainant uses the TELEDYNE mark in conjunction with its business practices. Complainant registered the TELEDYNE mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 637,429; registered Nov. 20, 1956). Complainant also registered the TELEDYNE mark with government entities throughout Asia, including Japan, Hong Kong, Singapore, India, and Taiwan. Respondent’s <teledyne-china.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant’s TELEDYNE mark because it incorporates the mark in its entirety, adding the geographic term “China,” a hyphen, and the “.com” generic top level domain (“gTLD”).
Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in <teledyne-china.com>. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Complainant has not authorized or licensed Respondent to use the TELEDYNE mark in any regard, nor is Respondent affiliated with Complainant. Respondent has not made a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the domain. Respondent’s <teledyne-china.com> resolves to a website offering counterfeit versions of Complainant’s products under the TELEDYNE mark.
Respondent registered <teledyne-china.com> in bad faith. The disputed domain name attracts internet users to Respondent’s website for commercial gain by offering Complainant’s goods and services, which are presumed to be counterfeit, thereby creating confusion as to the affiliation Respondent has with Complainant. Respondent registered <teledyne-china.com> with actual knowledge of Complainant and its rights to the TELEDYNE mark.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant is Teledyne Technologies Incorporated, of Thousand Oaks, CA, USA. Complainant is the owner of domestic and international registrations for the mark TELEDYNE, and its related family of marks. Complainant has used the mark continuously, since at least as early as 1956, in connection with its provision of a variety of goods and services in multiple markets requiring advanced technology, including but not limited to, engineering, environmental, defense and communication systems, as well as digital monitoring and management.
Respondent is aidengweizidonghuaxitongshebeishanghaiyouxiangongsi, of Shanghai, China. Respondent’s registrar’s address is listed as Fujian, China.
The Panel notes that the Respondent registered <teledyne-china.com> on or about June 24, 2014.
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.”).
Complainant is a global corporation that provides advanced technology and engineering goods and services. Complainant uses the TELEDYNE mark in conjunction with its business practices. Complainant registered the TELEDYNE mark with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 637,429; registered Nov. 20, 1956). Complainant also registered the TELEDYNE mark with government entities throughout Asia, including Japan, Hong Kong, Singapore, India, and Taiwan. Prior panels have found that registrations with the USPTO and other government entities are sufficient to show rights in a mark. See Fossil Group, Inc. v. wuruima wu, FA 1544486 (Forum Mar. 21, 2014) (holding, “Complainant’s registration of the FOSSIL mark with trademark agencies worldwide, including the USPTO and SAIC, establishes Complainant’s rights in the FOSSIL mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”). The Panel here finds that Complainant’s registrations with the USPTO and other government agencies are sufficient to show rights in the TELEDYNE mark.
Complainant argues that Respondent’s <teledyne-china.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant’s TELEDYNE mark because it incorporates the mark in its entirety, adding the geographic term “China,” a hyphen, and the “.com” gTLD. “[C]ommon geographic qualifiers or generic nouns can rarely be relied upon to differentiate the mark if the other elements of the domain name comprise a mark or marks in which another party has rights.” AXA China Region Ltd. v. KANNET Ltd., D2000-1377 (WIPO Nov. 29, 2000). Moreover, “the addition of punctuation marks such as hyphens is irrelevant in the determination of confusing similarity pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).” Health Devices Corp. v. Aspen S T C, FA 158254 (Forum July 1, 2003). Additionally, “it is a well-established principle that generic top-level domains are irrelevant when conducting a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis.” Isleworth Land Co. v. Lost in Space, SA, FA 117330 (Forum Sept. 27, 2002). The Panel here finds that Respondent’s <teledyne-china.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant’s TELEDYNE mark.
Respondent raises no contentions with regards to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant has proven this element.
The Panel recognizes that Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), then 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). Complainant has met this burden.
Complainant asserts that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in <teledyne-china.com>. Complainant indicates that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. WHOIS information associated with this case identifies respondent as “aidengweizidonghuaxitongshebeishanghaiyouxiangongsi.” When nothing in the WHOIS record indicates that a respondent is commonly known by a disputed domain name, past panels have determined that the respondent is not known by that name. See Google Inc. v. Domain Admin / Whois Privacy Corp., FA1502001605239 (Forum Mar. 22, 2015) (“WHOIS information for the at-issue domain name lists ‘Domain Admin / Whois Privacy Corp.’ as the domain name’s registrant and there is nothing in the record that otherwise suggests Respondent is commonly known by the <google-status.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).”). “Given the WHOIS contact information for the disputed domain [name],” the Panel may “infer that Respondent . . . is not commonly known by the [domain name] in any derivation.” Wells Fargo & Co. v. Onlyne Corp. Services11, Inc., FA 198969 (Forum Nov. 17, 2003).
Complainant states it has not authorized or licensed Respondent to use the TELEDYNE mark in any regard, nor is Respondent affiliated with Complainant. Complainant further argues that Respondent has not made a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the domain. In support, Complainant provides evidence that Respondent’s <teledyne-china.com> resolves to a website offering counterfeit versions of Complainant’s products under the TELEDYNE mark. Previous panels have failed to find rights and legitimate interests where the respondent sold counterfeit versions of the complainant’s products in competition with the complainant’s business. See e.g. Keihin Corp. v. Youli Ltd., FA 1106190 (Forum Dec. 18, 2007). The Panel here finds that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in <teledyne-china.com> pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or ¶ 4(c)(iii).
Respondent raises no contentions with regards to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
As Respondent has not provided a response to this action, the Respondent has failed to meet its burden regarding proof of any rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain.
Complainant has proven this element.
Complainant maintains that Respondent registered <teledyne-china.com> in bad faith. The Panel notes Complainant’s evidence that Respondent’s <teledyne-china.com> resolves to a website offering counterfeit versions of Complainant’s goods and services. Complainant additionally contends that the disputed domain name attracts internet users to Respondent’s website for commercial gain by creating confusion as to a perceived affiliation between Respondent and Complainant. Prior panels have determined that where the respondent is selling counterfeit products it creates the likelihood of confusion as to the complainant’s affiliation with the disputed domain name and allows the respondent to profit from that confusion. See e.g., H-D Michigan, LLC v. Ross, FA 1250712 (Forum Apr. 23, 2009). The Panel here finds that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name in competition with Complainant, by offering counterfeit products and misdirecting Internet users, constitutes disruption to Complainant’s business which demonstrates bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).
Respondent raises no contentions with regards to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Complainant has proven this element.
DECISION
As the Complainant has established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that Complainant’s requested relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <teledyne-china.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Darryl C. Wilson, Panelist
Dated: August 31, 2017
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page