Dell Inc. v. ajay singh
Claim Number: FA1806001790815
Complainant is Dell Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Danae T. Robinson of Pirkey Barber PLLC, Texas, USA. Respondent is ajay singh (“Respondent”), Singapore.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <alienwaresupportnumber.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.
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.
Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on June 8, 2018; the Forum received payment on June 8, 2018.
On June 12, 2018, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <alienwaresupportnumber.com> domain name is 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 June 12, 2018, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 2, 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@alienwaresupportnumber.com. Also on June 12, 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 Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On July 3, 2018, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Paul M. DeCicco 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 contends as follows:
Complainant is a world leader in computers, computer accessories, and other computer-related products and services.
Complainant has rights in the ALIENWARE mark through its trademark registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
Respondent’s <alienwaresupportnumber.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ALIENWARE mark as Respondent incorporates the mark in its entirety and adds the generic phrase “support number” and a “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <alienwaresupportnumber.com> domain name. Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant’s ALIENWARE mark and is not commonly known by the domain name. Additionally, Respondent is not using the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, Respondent is using the domain name to pass itself off as Complainant and phish for users’ personal information.
Respondent registered and uses the <alienwaresupportnumber.com> domain name in bad faith. Respondent attempts to attract users for commercial gain by passing itself off as Complainant and offering technical services for Complainant’s products. Respondent also attempts to obtain internet users’ personal information through phishing. Moreover, Respondent’s inconspicuous disclaimer does not mitigate any bad faith. Furthermore, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the ALIENWARE mark prior to registering the disputed domain name.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant owns a USPTO registered trademark for ALIENWARE.
Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and had not been authorized to use the ALIENWARE mark in any capacity.
Respondent registered the at-issue domain name after Complainant acquired trademark rights in ALIENWARE.
Respondent uses the <alienwaresupportnumber.com> domain name to address a website that mimics Complainant’s website and offers services related to Complainant’s products. Respondent’s <alienwaresupportnumber.com> website also facilitates a phishing scheme.
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 at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.
Complainant’s trademark registration of the ALIENWARE mark with the USPTO sufficiently demonstrates Complainant’s rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Expedia, Inc. v. Tan, FA 991075 (Forum June 29, 2007) (“As the [Complainant’s] mark is registered with the USPTO, Complainant has met the requirements of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)”).
The <alienwaresupportnumber.com> domain name incorporates Complainant’s entire ALIENWARE mark. The mark is followed by the descriptive term “supportnumber” (support number) and the top level domain name “.com.” The resulting differences between the at-issue domain name and Complainant’s mark are insufficient to distinguish the two for the purposes of the Policy. In fact the use of the term “supportnumber” suggests Complainant’s customer service and support related business and thus adds to the confusion between Complainant’s trademark and Respondent’s domain name. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent’s <alienwaresupportnumber.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s ALIENWARE mark under Policy ¶4(a)(i). See Wiluna Holdings, LLC v. Edna Sherman, FA 1652781 (Forum Jan. 22, 2016) (Finding the addition of a generic term and gTLD is insufficient in distinguishing a disputed domain name from a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).).
Respondent lacks both rights and legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant’s trademark in any capacity and, as discussed below, there are no Policy ¶4(c) circumstances from which the Panel might find that Respondent has rights or interests in respect of the domain name.
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. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006). Since Respondent failed to respond and since as discussed below there is no evidence supporting a finding pursuant to Policy 4(c) that Respondent has rights or interests in the at-issue domain name, Complainant’s prima facie showing acts conclusively.
WHOIS information identifies “ajay singh” as the at-issue domain name’s registrant. Moreover, the record before the Panel contains no evidence that suggests Respondent is otherwise commonly known by the <alienwaresupportnumber.com> domain name. The Panel thus concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Coppertown Drive-Thru Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089 (Forum July 17, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <coppertown.com> domain name where there was no evidence in the record, including the WHOIS information, suggesting that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name); see also Reese v. Morgan, FA 917029 (Forum Apr. 5, 2007) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <lilpunk.com> domain name as there was no evidence in the record showing that the respondent was commonly known by that domain name, including the WHOIS information as well as the complainant’s assertion that it did not authorize or license the respondent’s use of its mark in a domain name).
Further, Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to address a website designed to pass itself off as being sponsored by, or affiliated with, Complainant. Respondent’s use of the confusingly similar domain name for such purpose is neither a Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the at-issue domain name. See Nokia Corp. v. Eagle, FA 1125685 (Forum Feb. 7, 2008) (finding the respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to pass itself off as the complainant in order to advertise and sell unauthorized products of the complainant was not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)); see also General Motors LLC v. MIKE LEE, FA 1659965 (Forum Mar. 10, 2016) (finding that “use of a domain to sell products and/or services that compete directly with a complainant’s business does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”). Likewise, Respondent’s phishing scheme, employing a contact form to discover the private information of visitors to the <alienwaresupportnumber.com> website, is not indicative of either a Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) bona fide offering of goods or services, or a Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the at-issue domain name. See Google Inc. v. Pritam Singh / Pandaje Technical Services Pvt Ltd., FA 1660771 (Forum Mar. 17, 2016) (agreeing that respondent has not shown any bona fide offering of goods or services or any legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii) as the respondent used the complainant’s mark and logo on a resolving website containing offers for technical support and password recovery services, and soliciting Internet users’ personal information).
In light of the foregoing, Complainant satisfies its initial burden and conclusively demonstrates Respondent’s lack of rights and interests in respect of the at-issue domain name under Policy ¶4(a)(ii).
The at-issue domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. As discussed below Policy ¶4(b) bad faith circumstances are present and there is additional non-Policy ¶4(b) evidence from which the Panel may also conclude that Respondent acted in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶4(a)(iii).
As discussed above regarding rights and legitimate interests, Respondent uses the domain name to pass itself off as Complainant and to offer internet users services similar to those offered by Complainant. Respondent’s <alienwaresupportnumber.com> website displays Complainant’s trademarks and trade dress in furtherance thereof. Using the <alienwaresupportnumber.com> domain name in this manner demonstrates Respondent’s bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Bittrex, Inc. v. Wuxi Yilian LLC, FA 1760517 (Forum December 27, 2017) (finding bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where “Respondent registered and uses the <lbittrex.com> domain name in bad faith by directing Internet users to a website that mimics Complainant’s own website in order to confuse users into believing that Respondent is Complainant, or is otherwise affiliated or associated with Complainant.”); see also Xylem Inc. and Xylem IP Holdings LLC v. YinSi BaoHu YiKaiQi, FA1504001612750 (Forum May 13, 2015) (“The Panel agrees that Respondent’s use of the website to display products similar to Complainant’s, imputes intent to attract Internet users for commercial gain, and finds bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).”).
Moreover, Respondent’s phishing scheme, which seeks to extract personal information from <alienwaresupportnumber.com> visitors believing they are pursuing Complainant’s support services, also shows Respondent’s bad faith in registering and using the at-issue domain name. 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).”).
Finally, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the ALIENWARE trademark before registering the <alienwaresupportnumber.com> domain name. Respondent’s prior knowledge is evident from the fact that Respondent displays Complainant’s trademark on the <alienwaresupportnumber.com> website and otherwise passes itself off as Complainant, as well from the notoriety of the ALIENWARE trademark. Registering and using a confusingly similar domain with knowledge of a complainant’s rights in such domain name indicates bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶4(a)(iii). See Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent "actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <alienwaresupportnumber.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist
Dated: July 5, 2018
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page