Wiluna Holdings, LLC v. Zhichao Yang
Claim Number: FA1808001799739
Complainant is Wiluna Holdings, LLC (“Complainant”), represented by John O’Malley of Volpe and Koenig, P.C., Pennsylvania, USA. Respondent is Zhichao Yang (“Respondent”), China.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <cliups4sale.com> (‘the Domain Name’), registered with NameSilo, LLC.
The undersigned certifies that 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.
Dawn Osborne as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on August 2, 2018; the Forum received payment on August 2, 2018.
On August 3, 2018, NameSilo, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <cliups4sale.com> domain name is registered with NameSilo, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameSilo, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameSilo, 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 August 7, 2018, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 27, 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@cliups4sale.com. Also on August 7, 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 August 29. 2018, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Dawn Osborne 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 the owner of, inter alia, the registered trade marks CLIPS4SALE.COM and CLIPS4SALE registered in the USA for entertainment services and used since 2003.
The Domain Name registered in 2018 is a misspelling of Complainant’s trade mark adding only an extra ‘u’ and is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark.
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name by which it is not commonly known. Complainant’s has not authorised Respondent to use a confusingly similar sign to Complainant’s trade marks.
The Domain Name has been pointed to websites that compete with Complainant’s services. This is not bona fide or legitimate non commercial fair use. In fact it is bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv). Typosquatting is also bad faith per se under the Policy.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
The Complainant is the owner of, inter alia, the registered trade marks CLIPS4SALE.COM and CLIPS4SALE registered in the USA for entertainment services and used since 2003.
The Domain Name registered in 2018 has been pointed to a competing site not connected with Complainant.
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.”).
Identical and/or Confusingly Similar
The Domain Name consists of a misspelling of Complainant’s CLIPS4SALE.COM mark (registered, inter alia, in the USA for entertainment services and used since at least 2003) adding only an additional letter ‘u’. Panels have found that adding one letter does not distinguish a domain name from that mark. See Twitch Interactive, Inc. v Antonio Teggi, FA 1626528 (Forum Aug. 3, 2015) (finding that <twitcch.tv> is confusingly similar to the TWITCH TV trade mark because the domain name consisted of a common misspelling of the mark by merely adding the letter ‘c’).
Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar, for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), to a mark in which Complainant has rights.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
Complainant has not authorised the use of its mark. Respondent has not answered this Complaint and there is no evidence or reason to suggest Respondent is, in fact. commonly known by the Domain Name. See Alaska Air Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines v. Song Bin, FA1408001574905 (Forum Sep. 17, 2014) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name as demonstrated by the WHOIS information and based on the fact that the complainant had not licensed or authorized the respondent to use its ALASKA AIRLINES mark).
The web site to which the Domain Name redirects offers entertainment services in competition with those of Complainant. It does not make it clear that there is no commercial connection with Complainant. The Panel finds this use is confusing. As such it cannot amount to the bona fide offering of goods and services. See Am. Intl Group Inc v Benjamin FA 944242 (Forum May 11, 2007) (finding that the respondent's use of a confusingly similar domain name to advertise real estate services which competed with the complainant's business did not constitute a bona fide use of goods and services.)
As such the Panelist finds that Respondent does not have rights or a legitimate interest in the Domain Name and that Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
Respondent has not answered this Complaint or explained why it should be allowed to register a domain name containing Complainant’s mark and use it for competing services in what appears on the face of it to be a typosquatting registration.
In the opinion of the panelist the use made of the Domain Name in relation to the site is confusing and disruptive in that visitors to the site might reasonably believe it is connected to or approved by Complainant as it offers competing services under a sign confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark. Accordingly, the Panel holds that Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's trade marks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the web site likely to disrupt the business of Complainant under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv). See Asbury Auto Group Inc v Tex. Int'l Prop Assocs FA 958542 (Forum May 29, 2007) (finding that the respondent's use of the disputed domain name to advertise car dealerships that competed with the complainant's business would likely lead to confusion amongst Internet users as to the sponsorship or affiliation of those competing dealerships and was therefore evidence of bad faith and use).
Typosquatting itself is also evidence of relevant bad faith registration and use. See Diners Club int'l Ltd. v Domain Admin ****** It's all in the name ******, FA 156839 (Forum June 23, 2003) (“registering a domain name which entirely incorporates a famous mark with additional letter (s) in the hope that Internet users will mistype the Complainant’s mark and be taken to the Respondent’s site is registration and use in bad faith”).
As such, the Panel holds that Complainant has made out its case that the Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith and has satisfied the third limb of the Policy.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <cliups4sale.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Dawn Osborne, Panelist
Dated: August 29, 2018
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page