DECISION

 

United States Postal Service v. kyle javier

Claim Number: FA1805001787265

PARTIES

Complainant is United States Postal Service (“Complainant”), represented by Jennifer A. Van Kirk of Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP, Arizona, USA.  Respondent is kyle javier (“Respondent”), Texas, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <uspsonline.us>, registered with NameCheap, Inc.

 

PANEL

The undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.

 

Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on May 17, 2018; the Forum received payment on May 17, 2018.

 

On May 18, 2018, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <uspsonline.us> domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name.  NameCheap, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameCheap, Inc. registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with the U.S. Department of Commerce’s usTLD Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).

 

On May 18, 2018, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of June 7, 2018 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@uspsonline.us.  Also on May 18, 2018, 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 National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

 

On June 11, 2018, 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 to the usTLD Dispute Resolution Policy (“Rules”).  Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the usTLD Policy, usTLD 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.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

1.    Respondent’s <uspsonline.us> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s USPS mark.

 

2.    Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <uspsonline.us> domain name.

 

3.    Respondent registered and uses the <uspsonline.us> domain name in bad faith.

 

B.  Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant is the United States Postal Service, which holds a registration for the USPS mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 2,423,574, registered Jan. 23, 2001).

 

Respondent registered the<uspsonline.us> domain name on February 22, 2018, and uses it to pass itself off as Complainant and phish for Internet users’ personal information.

 

DISCUSSION

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 or 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.”).

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

The Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the USPS mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through registration with the USPTO.  See BGK Trademark Holdings, LLC & Beyoncé Giselle Knowles-Carter v. Chanphut / Beyonce Shop, FA 1626334 (Forum Aug. 3, 2015) (asserting that Complainant’s registration with the USPTO (or any other governmental authority) adequately proves its rights under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)).

 

Respondent’s <uspsonline.us> domain name incorporates the USPS mark, and simply adds the descriptive term “online” and the ccTLD “.us.”  The addition of a descriptive term and a gTLD do not negate confusing similarity between a disputed domain name and a mark.  See Microsoft Corporation v. Thong Tran Thanh, FA 1653187 (Forum Jan. 21, 2016) (determining that confusing similarity exists where [a disputed domain name] contains Complainant’s entire mark and differs only by the addition of a generic or descriptive phrase and top-level domain, the differences between the domain name and its contained trademark are insufficient to differentiate one from the other for the purposes of the Policy). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent’s <uspsonline.us> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s USPS mark.

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

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 Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)); see also Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) (“Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests”).

 

Complainant alleges that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and is not commonly known by the domain name.  Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its USPS mark.  The WHOIS information of record for the <uspsonline.us> domain name lists “kyle javier” as the registrant.  Therefore, the Panel finds that there is no evidence to show that Respondent is commonly known by the <uspsonline.us> domain name.  See IndyMac Bank F.S.B. v. Eshback, FA 830934 (Forum Dec. 7, 2006) (finding that the respondent failed to establish rights and legitimate interests in the <emitmortgage.com> domain name as the respondent was not authorized to register domain names featuring the complainant’s mark and failed to submit evidence that it is commonly known by the domain name); see also State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Dale Anderson, FA1504001613011 (Forum May 21, 2015) (concluding that because the WHOIS record lists “Dale Anderson” as the registrant of the disputed domain name, the respondent was not commonly known by the <statefarmforum.com> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)).

 

The Panel also notes that there is nothing in the record that indicates that Respondent has any trademark rights in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i).  See Pepsico, Inc. v. Becky, FA 117014 (Forum Sept. 3, 2002) (holding that because the respondent did not own any trademarks or service marks reflecting the <pepsicola.us> domain name, it had no rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i)).

 

Complainant argues that Respondent uses the <uspsonline.us> domain name to pass off as Complainant and phish for Internet users’ personal information. Use of a domain name to pass off as a complainant for phishing purposes is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) and (iv).  See DaVita Inc. v. Cynthia Rochelo, FA 1738034 (Forum July 20, 2017) (”Passing off in furtherance of a phishing scheme is not considered a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use.”).  Complainant provides screenshots of the <uspsonline.us> website that show that the site imitates Complainant’s <usps.com> website.  Complainant contends that Respondent uses the copied website to mislead Internet users into providing personal information under the mistaken belief that Respondent’s website is affiliated with Complainant’s business.  The Panel finds that this use is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use and thus Respondent has no rights in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) and (iv)

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

 

Registration or Use in Bad Faith

Complainant alleges that Respondent is using the disputed domain name to divert Internet users to Respondent’s website, which features content that is identical to Complainant’s own website.  The Panel finds that Respondent is disrupting Complainant’s business and that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).  See Artistic Pursuit LLC v. calcuttawebdevelopers.com, FA 894477 (Forum Mar. 8, 2007) (finding that the respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name, which displayed a website virtually identical to the complainant’s website, constituted bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)).

 

Respondent is using the disputed domain name to create confusion with Complainant’s mark for Respondent’s commercial gain.  Use of a domain name to attract Internet users and create confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement therein is evidence of bad faith.  See Am. Online, Inc. v. Fu, D2000-1374 (WIPO Dec. 11, 2000) (finding that the respondent violated Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) by displaying the complainant’s mark on its website and offering identical services as those offered by the complainant).  Here, Respondent’s <uspsonline.us> website features Complainant’s USPS mark and offers services that are identical to Complainant’s, no doubt for commercial gain.  The Panel finds that this constitutes bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).

 

The Panel also finds that Respondent registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the USPS mark in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).  See Univision Comm'cns Inc. v. Norte, FA 1000079 (Forum Aug. 16, 2007) (rejecting the respondent's contention that it did not register the disputed domain name in bad faith since the panel found that the respondent had knowledge of the complainant's rights in the UNIVISION mark when registering the disputed domain name); see also Victoria’s Secret Stores Brand Mgmt., Inc. v. Michael Bach, FA 1426668 (Forum March 2, 2012) (“Although Complainant has not submitted evidence indicating actual knowledge by Respondent of its rights in the trademark, the Panel finds that, due to the fame of Complainant’s [VICTORIA’S SECRET] mark, Respondent had actual notice at the time of the domain name registration and therefore registered the domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”).

 

Complainant also shows that Respondent uses the disputed domain name in connection with a phishing scheme.  Use of a domain name to phish for Internet users’ personal information is evidence of bad faith.  See Klabzuba Oil & Gas, Inc. v. LAKHPAT SINGH BHANDARI, FA1506001625750 (Forum July 17, 2015) (“Respondent uses the <klabzuba-oilgas.com> domain to engage in phishing, which means Respondent registered and uses the domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”).  Accordingly, the Panel finds further bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

DECISION

Having established all three elements required under the usTLD Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <uspsonline.us> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist

Dated:  June 12, 2018

 

 

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page