Thomson Reuters Global Resources Unlimited Company v. Liao Jing Cheng
Claim Number: FA1808001800443
Complainant is Thomson Reuters Global Resources Unlimited Company (“Complainant”), represented by Thomas Walsh of MontaguLaw, P.C., United States of America. Respondent is Liao Jing Cheng (“Respondent”), China.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <reutous.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.
Richard Hill as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on August 7, 2018; the Forum received payment on August 7, 2018.
On August 8, 2018, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <reutous.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 August 8, 2018, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 28, 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@reutous.com. Also on August 8, 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 30, 2018, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Richard Hill 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 states that it is a leading provider of information for businesses and professionals in the financial, legal, tax and accounting, and media markets. Complainant uses its REUTERS mark to promote its products and services and established rights in the mark through registration in the United States in 1975. The mark is also registered elsewhere around the world, including in China, and it is famous.
Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its mark as it merely replaces the fifth and sixth letters in the mark with the letters “O” and “U” and appends the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.”
According to Complainant, Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its REUTERS mark in any fashion. Respondent is also not commonly known by the disputed domain name as the WHOIS information of record lists “Liao Jing Cheng” as the registrant. Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent uses the domain name to pass itself off as Complainant by resolving to a website that mimics Complainant’s own <www.cn.reuters.com> website. The resolving website contains Complainant’s logo and verbatim copies of numerous articles from Complainant’s site.
Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent registered the domain name for the primary purpose of disrupting Complainant’s business. Further, Respondent is using the disputed domain name to create confusion with Complainant’s mark for Respondent’s commercial gain. Respondent also registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the REUTERS mark. Finally, Respondent engaged in typosquatting by registering a domain name containing a misspelled version of Complainant’s REUTERS mark.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant owns rights in the mark REUTERS dating back to at least 1975. The mark is famous.
The disputed domain name was registered in 2017.
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark.
Respondent is using the disputed domain name to resolve to a website that mimics Complainant’s Chinese-language website, including verbatim copies of articles from Complainant’s site.
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 disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark as it merely replaces the fifth and sixth letters in Complainant’s REUTERS mark with the letters “O” and “U” and appends the gTLD “.com.” Further, although “reutous” is spelled differently than “Reuters,” the two terms are phonetically similar. Such differences with respect to a mark may not sufficiently distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark. See Omaha Steaks International, Inc. v. DN Manager / Whois-Privacy.Net Ltd, FA 1610122 (Forum July 9, 2015) (“The domain name differs from the mark only in that the domain name substitutes the letter ‘a’ in the word ‘steak’ with the letter ‘c’ and adds the generic Top Level Domain (‘gTLD’) ‘.com.’ These alterations of the mark, made in forming the domain name, do not save it from the realm of confusing similarity under the standards of the Policy.”); see also Am. Online, Inc. v. Triple E Holdings Ltd., FA 281584 (Forum July 15, 2004) (“Words that are spelled differently but are phonetically similar do not negate the confusing similarity of Respondent’s domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”). Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent’s <reutous.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s REUTERS mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its REUTERS mark in any fashion. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name: in the absence of a response, the WHOIS information can be used to support a finding that a respondent is not commonly known by a disputed domain name. See 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)(ii)). Here, the WHOIS information lists “Liao Jing Cheng” as the registrant. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name.
Respondent uses the disputed domain name to pass itself off as Complainant by resolving to a website that mimics Complainant’s own website. Specifically, Complainant provides screenshots of the resolving website and screenshots of its own <www.cn.reuters.com> website, showing that the content on the two sites includes Complainant’s logo and verbatim copies of articles from Complainant’s site. Under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii), use of a domain name to pass off as a complainant may not be considered a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See Kmart of Mich., Inc. v. Cone, FA 655014 (Forum Apr. 25, 2006) (The panel found the respondent’s attempt to pass itself of as 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 pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) when the respondent used the disputed domain name to present users with a website that was nearly identical to the complainant’s website). As such, the Panel finds that Respondent failed to use the disputed domain name for a legitimate Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii) use. And the Panel finds that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Respondent (who did not reply to Complainant’s contentions) has not presented any plausible explanation for its use of Complainant’s famous mark. In accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel shall draw such inferences from Respondent’s failure to reply as it considers appropriate. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent did not have a legitimate use in mind when registering the disputed domain name.
Indeed, as already noted, Respondent uses the disputed domain name to pass off as Complainant for the purpose of disrupting Complainant’s business and creating confusion with Complainant’s REUTERS mark for commercial gain. Per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv), use of a domain name to disrupt a complainant’s business or create confusion as to the content therein may evidence bad faith. 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)); see also Bittrex, Inc. v. Wuxi Yilian LLC, FA 1760517 (Forum Dec. 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.”). Accordingly, finds that Respondent used the disputed domain name to pass off as Complainant and hold that Respondent engaged in Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv) bad faith registration and use.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <reutous.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Richard Hill, Panelist
Dated: August 30, 2018
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page