HNA Group Co., Ltd. v. Allen Zhao
Claim Number: FA1809001809412
Complainant is HNA Group Co., Ltd. (“Complainant”), represented by JIAYI CHEN of HNA Group Co., Ltd., New York, USA. Respondent is Allen Zhao (“Respondent”), New York, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <hnaholdings-ny.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.
Kenneth L. Port as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on September 27, 2018; the Forum received payment on October 3, 2018.
On September 28, 2018, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <hnaholdings-ny.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 October 3, 2018, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of October 23, 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@hnaholdings-ny.com. Also on October 3, 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 October, 26, 2018, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Kenneth L. Port 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 owns and operates a holding company which uses the HNA mark in connection with its goods and services. Complainant has rights in the HNA mark through its trademark registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 4,262,995, registered Dec. 25, 2012). See Amend. Compl. Ex. A. Respondent’s <hnaholdings-ny.com> domain name is identical to Complainant’s HNA mark.
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <hnaholdings-ny.com> domain name. Respondent was a former employee of HNA Property Holdings, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Complainant (“HNA Group Co.”). See Amend. Compl. Ex. B. Respondent uses an email address associated with the disputed domain name to advertise job opportunities in New York. See Amend. Compl. Ex. C.
Respondent registered and uses the <hnaholdings-ny.com> domain name in bad faith. Respondent refuses to transfer the disputed domain name after it left Complainant’s business. Respondent’s possession of the disputed domain name is a threat and liability to Complainant and a misappropriation of Complainant’s asset.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. The disputed domain name was registered on January 28, 2015.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s valid and subsisting trademark; that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in or to the disputed domain name; and that Respondent has engaged in bad faith use and registration of the disputed domain name.
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 Panel finds that the disputed domain name, <hnaholdings-ny.com>, is confusingly similar to Complainant’s valid and subsisting trademark, HNA. Complainant has adequately plead its rights and interests in and to this trademark. Respondent arrives at the disputed domain name by merely adding the generic word “holdings” and the generic geographic indicator “ny” plus the g TLD “.com” to Complainant’s precise trademark. This is insufficient to distinguish the disputed domain name from Complainant’s trademark.
As such, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark.
The Panel further finds that Respondent lacks any rights or legitimate interests in or to the disputed domain name. Respondent has no right, permission or license to register the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name.
Further, although Complainant does not specifically allege with precise language, it appears that it is claiming that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain names do not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, Complainant claims that Respondent was a former employee of HNA Property Holdings, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Complainant (“HNA Group Co.”). See Amend. Compl. Ex. B. Respondent uses an email address associated with the disputed domain name to advertise job opportunities in New York. See Amend. Compl. Ex. C.
As such, Respondent lacks any rights or legitimate interests in or to the disputed domain name.
The Panel also finds that Respondent has engaged in bad faith use and registration of the disputed domain name. Complainant states that Respondent is a former employee and failed to transfer the disputed domain name as a result of a reorganization of Complainant’s business. Registration of a disputed domain name by a former employee may constitute actual knowledge in a complainant’s mark, thus supporting a finding of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Holding Company of The Villages, Inc. v. Jaime Goldsmith, FA 1673212 (Forum Jun. 16, 2016) (finding the respondent’s status as a former employee of complainant’s dispositive in holding the respondent had actual knowledge of the complainant’s mark and rights and thus registered the disputed domain name in bad faith); see also Arab Bank for Inv. & Foreign Trade v. Akkou, D2000-1399 (WIPO Dec. 19, 2000) (finding bad faith registration and use where the respondent was formerly employed by the complainant, was fully aware of the name of her employer, and made no use of the infringing domain name).
Here, Complainant contends that Respondent, fully knowing of the reorganization of Complainant’s business, has failed to transfer the disputed domain name pursuant to the Notice Regarding the Stipulation and Promulgation of HNA Logistics Organization Structure that required it to do so. See Amend. Compl. Exs. B and D.
As such, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be granted.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <hnaholdings-ny.com> domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
Kenneth L. Port, Panelist
Dated: October 29, 2018
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page