Teledyne Technologies Incorporated v. Charles Match
Claim Number: FA1708001743196
Complainant is Teledyne Technologies Incorporated (“Complainant”), represented by Mary Dalton Baril of McGuire Woods LLP, Virginia, USA. Respondent is Charles Match (“Respondent”), Indiana, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <teledyne-resons.com>, registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com.
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 August 4, 2017; the Forum received payment on August 4, 2017.
On August 8, 2017, PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <teledyne-resons.com> domain name is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com 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 August 8, 2017, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 28, 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-resons.com. Also on August 8, 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 August31, 2017, 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 name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant is a technology company that supports industrial growth markets such as deep-water oil and gas exploration and production, oceanographic research, air and water quality environmental monitoring, factory automation and medical imaging. Complainant uses its TELEDYNE and RESON marks to promote its business. Complainant registered its 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 trademark entities throughout Asia. Complainant registered the RESON mark with USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 3,382,049, registered Feb. 12, 2008). Respondent’s <teledyne-resons.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s TELEDYNE and RESON marks because it incorporates both marks in their entirety, adding a hyphen, the letter “s,” and the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).
Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use the TELEDYNE or RESON marks. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Respondent is not using the <teledyne-resons.com> domain name in connection with any bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii). Respondent’s <teledyne-resons.com> domain name does not resolve to an active website.
Respondent has registered and is using the <teledyne-resons.com> domain name in bad faith. The disputed domain does not resolve to a webpage. Instead, users are redirected to a search engine displaying the message that <teledyne-resons.com> does not exist. Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant and its TELEDYNE and RESON marks when he registered <teledyne-resons.com>.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Teledyne Technologies Incorporated, is a technology company that supports industrial growth markets such as deep-water oil and gas exploration and production, oceanographic research, air and water quality environmental monitoring, factory automation and medical imaging. Complainant uses its TELEDYNE and RESON marks (“TELEDYNE marks”) to promote its business. Complainant registered its TELEDYNE mark with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 637,429, registered Nov. 20, 1956). Complainant also registered the TELEDYNE mark with government trademark entities throughout Asia. Complainant registered the RESON mark with USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 3,382,049, registered Feb. 12, 2008). Respondent’s <teledyne-resons.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s TELEDYNE aand RESON marks.
Respondent, Charles Match, registered <teledyne-resons.com> on February 15, 2017.
Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent’s <teledyne-resons.com> domain name does not resolve to an active website.
Respondent has registered and is using the <teledyne-resons.com> 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 (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 in its TELEDYNE marks through registration with the USPTO and with government trademark entities throughout Asia. Complainant has rights in its RESON mark through registration with the USPTO. See T-Mobile USA, Inc. dba MetroPCS v. Ryan G Foo / PPA Media Services, FA 1627542 (Forum Aug. 9, 2015) (finding that Complainant has rights in the METROPCS mark through its registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office).
Respondent’s <teledyne-resons.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s TELEDYNE and RESON marks because it includes both marks in their entirety, adding a hyphen, the letter “s,” and the gTLD “.com.” The combination of two marks, addition of a hyphen and appendage of a gTLD does not negate confusing similarity. See Wyndham Hotels and Resorts, LLC, and Wyndham Vacation Resorts, Inc. v. James VanBuren, FA 1624028 (Forum July 10, 2015) (“The disputed domain name combines two of Complainant's registered trademarks, WYNDHAM and EXTRA VACATIONS, omitting the space and adding the ".com" top-level domain name. These alterations do not diminish the similarity between the domain name and Complainant's marks.”); see also Gen. Elec. Co. v. Bakhit, D2000-0386 (WIPO June 22, 2000) (finding that placing a hyphen in domain name between “General” and “Electric” is confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark). Likewise, the addition of letters to a mark do not remove the disputed domain from the realm of confusing similarity. See T.R. World Gym-IP, LLC v. D’Addio, FA 956501 (Forum May 22, 2007) (finding that the addition of the letter “s” to a registered trademark in a contested domain name is not enough to avoid a finding of confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)).
Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its TELEDYNE and RESON marks. The WHOIS information for <teledyne-resons.com> lists “charles Match” as the registrant. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Navistar International Corporation v. N Rahmany, FA 1620789 (Forum June 8, 2015) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name where the complainant had never authorized the respondent to incorporate its NAVISTAR mark in any domain name registration); see Chevron Intellectual Property LLC v. Fred Wallace, FA 1626022 (Forum July 27, 2015) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <chevron-europe.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), as the WHOIS information named “Fred Wallace” as registrant of the disputed domain name).
Respondent fails to use <teledyne-resons.com> in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or any legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). The disputed domain name does not resolve to an active webpage. See Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Shemesh, FA 434145 (Forum Apr. 20, 2005) (“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).”).
Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). The resolving webpage indicates that <teledyne-resons.com> is unable to be found. A respondent’s failure to make an active use of a disputed domain name’s resolving webpage is evidence of bad faith. See Caravan Club v. Mrgsale, FA 95314 (Forum Aug. 30, 2000) (finding that the respondent made no use of the domain name or website that connects with the domain name, and that [failure to make an active use] of a domain name permits an inference of registration and use in bad faith.
Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the TELEDYNE and RESON marks at the time Respondent registered the <teledyne-resons.com> domain name. See Black Hills Ammunition, Inc. v. Kevin Wall, (Forum) FA1401001541570 (finding actual knowledge because there was no legitimate reason for Respondent to register a domain name containing ‘Black Hills Amo’ other than to trade on Complainant’s trademark rights and that ‘Black Hills Amo’ means nothing other than Complainant’s trademark).
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 <teledyne-resons.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.), Panelist
Dated: September 14, 2017
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page