Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. v. Lekiam Danny / Lavanya Clement / WEB ADMIN
Claim Number: FA1810001812335
Complainant is Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. (“Complainant”), represented by James F. Struthers of Richard Law Group, Inc., Texas, USA. Respondent is Lekiam Danny / Lavanya Clement / WEB ADMIN (“Respondent”), India.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <123hp.co>, <1-2-3hp.com>, <123hp.help>, <123-hp-deskjet.com>, <123-hp-dj.com>, <123-hp-envy.com>, <123-hp-envy4500.co>, <123-hp-envy4500.com>, <123-hp-envy4510.co>, <123-hp-envy4510.com>, <123-hp-envy4520.co>, <123-hp-envy4520.com>, <123-hp-envy5530.co>, <123-hp-envy5540.com>, <123-hp-envy5640.co>, <123-hp-envy5640.com>, <123-hp-envy5660.co>, <123-hp-envy5660.com>, <123-hp-envy5740.co>, <123-hp-envy5740.com>, <123-hp-envy7640.co>, <123-hp-envy7640.com>, <123-hp-envy7645.co>, <123-hp-envy7645.com>, <123-hp-officejet.com>, <123hpofficejet.pro>, <123-hp-officejet.pro>, <123-hp-officejetpro.com>, <123-hp-oj.com>, <123hpoj.pro>, <123hp-oj.pro>, <123-hp-oj.pro>, <123-hp-oj3830.co>, <123-hp-oj3830.com>, <123-hp-oj4620.co>, <123-hp-oj4620.com>, <123-hp-oj4630.co>, <123-hp-oj4630.com>, <123-hp-oj4650.co>, <123-hp-oj4650.com>, <123-hp-oj4655.co>, <123-hp-oj4655.com>, <123-hp-oj5740.co>, <123-hp-oj5740.com>, <123-hp-oj6100.co>, <123-hp-oj6100.com>, <123-hp-oj6600.co>, <123-hp-oj6600.com>, <123-hp-oj6700.co>, <123-hp-oj6700.com>, <123-hp-oj6800.co>, <123-hp-oj6800.com>, <123-hp-oj7110.co>, <123-hp-oj7110.com>, <123-hp-oj7510.co>, <123-hp-oj7510.com>, <123-hp-oj7610.co>, <123-hp-oj7610.com>, <123-hp-oj8040.co>, <123-hp-oj8040.com>, <123-hp-ojpro3610.co>, <123-hp-ojpro3610.com>, <123-hp-ojpro6230.co>, <123-hp-ojpro6230.com>, <123-hp-ojpro6830.co>, <123-hp-ojpro6830.com>, <123-hp-ojpro8610.co>, <123-hp-ojpro8610.com>, <123-hp-ojpro8620.co>, <123-hp-ojpro8620.com>, <123-hp-ojpro8630.co>, <123-hp-ojpro8630.com>, <123-hp-ojpro8640.co>, <123-hp-ojpro8640.com>, <123-hp-ojpro8650.co>, <123-hp-ojpro8650.com>, <123-hp-ojpro8660.co>, <123-hp-ojpro8660.com>, <123-hp-ojpro8710.co>, <123-hp-ojpro8710.com>, <123-hp-ojpro8720.co>, <123-hp-ojpro8720.com>, <123-hp-ojpro8740.co>, <123-hp-ojpro8740.com>, <123hp-printer-setup.com>, <123-hp-printer-setup.com>, <123hp-setup.co>, <123hp-setup.com>, <123hpsetup.help>, <123hpsetup.org>, <123hpsetup.support>, <123hpsetup.tech>, <123-hp-setup-envy.com>, <123-hp-setup-officejet.com>, <123hpsetupoj.com>, <123hpsetupojpro.com>, <123hpsetupprinter.co>, <123hpsetupprinter.com>, <hp-123.co>, <hp-123.com>, <hp-chat.support>, <hp-com.co>, <hpofficejet.pro>, <hp-officejet.pro>, <hp-oj.pro>, <hp-setup.co>, <hp-setup.com>, <hpdeskjet.support>, <hpenvy.co>, <hpenvy.support>, <hplaserjet.co>, <hplaserjet.support>, <hpofficejet.support>, <hpphotosmart.support>, <hpprinterassistant.co>, <hpprinterassistant.info>, <hpprinterassistant.org>, registered with Godaddy.Com, Llc; Bigrock Solutions Ltd; Uniregistrar Corp; 1Api Gmbh, Godaddy.Com, Inc..
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.
Ho Hyun Nahm, Esq. as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on October 17, 2018; the Forum received payment on October 22, 2018.
On October 19, 2018; October 22, 2018; October 29, 2018, Godaddy.Com, Llc; Bigrock Solutions Ltd; Uniregistrar Corp; 1Api Gmbh, Godaddy.Com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <123hp.co>, <1-2-3hp.com>, <123hp.help>, <123-hp-deskjet.com>, <123-hp-dj.com>, <123-hp-envy.com>, <123-hp-envy4500.co>, <123-hp-envy4500.com>, <123-hp-envy4510.co>, <123-hp-envy4510.com>, <123-hp-envy4520.co>, <123-hp-envy4520.com>, <123-hp-envy5530.co>, <123-hp-envy5540.com>, <123-hp-envy5640.co>, <123-hp-envy5640.com>, <123-hp-envy5660.co>, <123-hp-envy5660.com>, <123-hp-envy5740.co>, <123-hp-envy5740.com>, <123-hp-envy7640.co>, <123-hp-envy7640.com>, <123-hp-envy7645.co>, <123-hp-envy7645.com>, <123-hp-officejet.com>, <123hpofficejet.pro>, <123-hp-officejet.pro>, <123-hp-officejetpro.com>, <123-hp-oj.com>, <123hpoj.pro>, <123hp-oj.pro>, <123-hp-oj.pro>, <123-hp-oj3830.co>, <123-hp-oj3830.com>, <123-hp-oj4620.co>, <123-hp-oj4620.com>, <123-hp-oj4630.co>, <123-hp-oj4630.com>, <123-hp-oj4650.co>, <123-hp-oj4650.com>, <123-hp-oj4655.co>, <123-hp-oj4655.com>, <123-hp-oj5740.co>, <123-hp-oj5740.com>, <123-hp-oj6100.co>, <123-hp-oj6100.com>, <123-hp-oj6600.co>, <123-hp-oj6600.com>, <123-hp-oj6700.co>, <123-hp-oj6700.com>, <123-hp-oj6800.co>, <123-hp-oj6800.com>, <123-hp-oj7110.co>, <123-hp-oj7110.com>, <123-hp-oj7510.co>, <123-hp-oj7510.com>, <123-hp-oj7610.co>, <123-hp-oj7610.com>, <123-hp-oj8040.co>, <123-hp-oj8040.com>, <123-hp-ojpro3610.co>, <123-hp-ojpro3610.com>, <123-hp-ojpro6230.co>, <123-hp-ojpro6230.com>, <123-hp-ojpro6830.co>, <123-hp-ojpro6830.com>, <123-hp-ojpro8610.co>, <123-hp-ojpro8610.com>, <123-hp-ojpro8620.co>, <123-hp-ojpro8620.com>, <123-hp-ojpro8630.co>, <123-hp-ojpro8630.com>, <123-hp-ojpro8640.co>, <123-hp-ojpro8640.com>, <123-hp-ojpro8650.co>, <123-hp-ojpro8650.com>, <123-hp-ojpro8660.co>, <123-hp-ojpro8660.com>, <123-hp-ojpro8710.co>, <123-hp-ojpro8710.com>, <123-hp-ojpro8720.co>, <123-hp-ojpro8720.com>, <123-hp-ojpro8740.co>, <123-hp-ojpro8740.com>, <123hp-printer-setup.com>, <123-hp-printer-setup.com>, <123hp-setup.co>, <123hp-setup.com>, <123hpsetup.help>, <123hpsetup.org>, <123hpsetup.support>, <123hpsetup.tech>, <123-hp-setup-envy.com>, <123-hp-setup-officejet.com>, <123hpsetupoj.com>, <123hpsetupojpro.com>, <123hpsetupprinter.co>, <123hpsetupprinter.com>, <hp-123.co>, <hp-123.com>, <hp-chat.support>, <hp-com.co>, <hpofficejet.pro>, <hp-officejet.pro>, <hp-oj.pro>, <hp-setup.co>, <hp-setup.com>, <hpdeskjet.support>, <hpenvy.co>, <hpenvy.support>, <hplaserjet.co>, <hplaserjet.support>, <hpofficejet.support>, <hpphotosmart.support>, <hpprinterassistant.co>, <hpprinterassistant.info>, <hpprinterassistant.org> domain names are registered with Godaddy.Com, Llc; Bigrock Solutions Ltd; Uniregistrar Corp; 1Api Gmbh, Godaddy.Com, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Godaddy.Com, Llc; Bigrock Solutions Ltd; Uniregistrar Corp; 1Api Gmbh, Godaddy.Com, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Godaddy.Com, Llc; Bigrock Solutions Ltd; Uniregistrar Corp; 1Api Gmbh, Godaddy.Com, Inc. 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 30, 2018, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of November 19, 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@123hp.co, postmaster@1-2-3hp.com, postmaster@123hp.help, postmaster@123-hp-deskjet.com, postmaster@123-hp-dj.com, postmaster@123-hp-envy.com, postmaster@123-hp-envy4500.co, postmaster@123-hp-envy4500.com, postmaster@123-hp-envy4510.co, postmaster@123-hp-envy4510.com, postmaster@123-hp-envy4520.co, postmaster@123-hp-envy4520.com, postmaster@123-hp-envy5530.co, postmaster@123-hp-envy5540.com, postmaster@123-hp-envy5640.co, postmaster@123-hp-envy5640.com, postmaster@123-hp-envy5660.co, postmaster@123-hp-envy5660.com, postmaster@123-hp-envy5740.co, postmaster@123-hp-envy5740.com, postmaster@123-hp-envy7640.co, postmaster@123-hp-envy7640.com, postmaster@123-hp-envy7645.co, postmaster@123-hp-envy7645.com, postmaster@123-hp-officejet.com, postmaster@123hpofficejet.pro, postmaster@123-hp-officejet.pro, postmaster@123-hp-officejetpro.com, postmaster@123-hp-oj.com, postmaster@123hpoj.pro, postmaster@123hp-oj.pro, postmaster@123-hp-oj.pro, postmaster@123-hp-oj3830.co, postmaster@123-hp-oj3830.com, postmaster@123-hp-oj4620.co, postmaster@123-hp-oj4620.com, postmaster@123-hp-oj4630.co, postmaster@123-hp-oj4630.com, postmaster@123-hp-oj4650.co, postmaster@123-hp-oj4650.com, postmaster@123-hp-oj4655.co, postmaster@123-hp-oj4655.com, postmaster@123-hp-oj5740.co, postmaster@123-hp-oj5740.com, postmaster@123-hp-oj6100.co, postmaster@123-hp-oj6100.com, postmaster@123-hp-oj6600.co, postmaster@123-hp-oj6600.com, postmaster@123-hp-oj6700.co, postmaster@123-hp-oj6700.com, postmaster@123-hp-oj6800.co, postmaster@123-hp-oj6800.com, postmaster@123-hp-oj7110.co, postmaster@123-hp-oj7110.com, postmaster@123-hp-oj7510.co, postmaster@123-hp-oj7510.com, postmaster@123-hp-oj7610.co, postmaster@123-hp-oj7610.com, postmaster@123-hp-oj8040.co, postmaster@123-hp-oj8040.com, postmaster@123-hp-ojpro3610.co, postmaster@123-hp-ojpro3610.com, postmaster@123-hp-ojpro6230.co, postmaster@123-hp-ojpro6230.com, postmaster@123-hp-ojpro6830.co, postmaster@123-hp-ojpro6830.com, postmaster@123-hp-ojpro8610.co, postmaster@123-hp-ojpro8610.com, postmaster@123-hp-ojpro8620.co, postmaster@123-hp-ojpro8620.com, postmaster@123-hp-ojpro8630.co, postmaster@123-hp-ojpro8630.com, postmaster@123-hp-ojpro8640.co, postmaster@123-hp-ojpro8640.com, postmaster@123-hp-ojpro8650.co, postmaster@123-hp-ojpro8650.com, postmaster@123-hp-ojpro8660.co, postmaster@123-hp-ojpro8660.com, postmaster@123-hp-ojpro8710.co, postmaster@123-hp-ojpro8710.com, postmaster@123-hp-ojpro8720.co, postmaster@123-hp-ojpro8720.com, postmaster@123-hp-ojpro8740.co, postmaster@123-hp-ojpro8740.com, postmaster@123hp-printer-setup.com, postmaster@123-hp-printer-setup.com, postmaster@123hp-setup.co, postmaster@123hp-setup.com, postmaster@123hpsetup.help, postmaster@123hpsetup.org, postmaster@123hpsetup.support, postmaster@123hpsetup.tech, postmaster@123-hp-setup-envy.com, postmaster@123-hp-setup-officejet.com, postmaster@123hpsetupoj.com, postmaster@123hpsetupojpro.com, postmaster@123hpsetupprinter.co, postmaster@123hpsetupprinter.com, postmaster@hp-123.co, postmaster@hp-123.com, postmaster@hp-chat.support, postmaster@hp-com.co, postmaster@hpofficejet.pro, postmaster@hp-officejet.pro, postmaster@hp-oj.pro, postmaster@hp-setup.co, postmaster@hp-setup.com, postmaster@hpdeskjet.support, postmaster@hpenvy.co, postmaster@hpenvy.support, postmaster@hplaserjet.co, postmaster@hplaserjet.support, postmaster@hpofficejet.support, postmaster@hpphotosmart.support, postmaster@hpprinterassistant.co, postmaster@hpprinterassistant.info, postmaster@hpprinterassistant.org. Also on October 30, 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.
A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on November 19, 2018.
On November 20, 2018, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Ho Hyun Nahm, Esq. 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.
Complainant requests that the domain names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
PRELIMINARY ISSUE: MULTIPLE RESPONDENTS
In the instant proceedings, Complainant has alleged that the entities which control the domain names at issue are effectively controlled by the same person and/or entity, which is operating under several aliases. Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”) provides that a “complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder.”
Complainant contends that Respondent “Lekiam Danny” is the current nominal registrant of all the disputed domain name except those owned by “WEB ADMIN” or “Lavanya Clement.” See Amend. Compl. Exs. A and A1. Respondent “Lekiam Danny” is also the prior nominal owner for the disputed domain names now listing the registrant as “WEB ADMIN,” which promote tech support services with the same phone numbers used by “Danny Lekiam.” See Amend. Compl. Exs. C1 and D1. Since the nominal registrants Lekiam Danny, Lavanya Clement, and WEB ADMIN can all be reached using the same toll-free number, it is apparent that the disputed domain names are part of a single enterprise. The Panel finds all of the disputed domain names are commonly controlled by a single Respondent who is using multiple aliases.
A. Complainant
i) Complainant is a leading, global provider of printers, PCs, mobile devices, solutions, and services. Complainant has rights in the HP mark through its trademark registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 1,116,835, registered Apr. 24, 1979). See Compl. Ex. G. Respondent’s <123hp.co>, <1-2-3hp.com>, <123hp.help>, <123-hp-deskjet.com>, <123-hp-dj.com>, <123-hp-envy.com>, <123-hp-envy4500.co>, <123-hp-envy4500.com>, <123-hp-envy4510.co>, <123-hp-envy4510.com>, <123-hp-envy4520.co>, <123-hp-envy4520.com>, <123-hp-envy5530.co>, <123-hp-envy5540.com>, <123-hp-envy5640.co>, <123-hp-envy5640.com>, <123-hp-envy5660.co>, <123-hp-envy5660.com>, <123-hp-envy5740.co>, <123-hp-envy5740.com>, <123-hp-envy7640.co>, <123-hp-envy7640.com>, <123-hp-envy7645.co>, <123-hp-envy7645.com>, <123-hp-officejet.com>, <123hpofficejet.pro>, <123-hp-officejet.pro>, <123-hp-officejetpro.com>, <123-hp-oj.com>, <123hpoj.pro>, <123hp-oj.pro>, <123-hp-oj.pro>, <123-hp-oj3830.co>, <123-hp-oj3830.com>, <123-hp-oj4620.co>, <123-hp-oj4620.com>, <123-hp-oj4630.co>, <123-hp-oj4630.com>, <123-hp-oj4650.co>, <123-hp-oj4650.com>, <123-hp-oj4655.co>, <123-hp-oj4655.com>, <123-hp-oj5740.co>, <123-hp-oj5740.com>, <123-hp-oj6100.co>, <123-hp-oj6100.com>, <123-hp-oj6600.co>, <123-hp-oj6600.com>, <123-hp-oj6700.co>, <123-hp-oj6700.com>, <123-hp-oj6800.co>, <123-hp-oj6800.com>, <123-hp-oj7110.co>, <123-hp-oj7110.com>, <123-hp-oj7510.co>, <123-hp-oj7510.com>, <123-hp-oj7610.co>, <123-hp-oj7610.com>, <123-hp-oj8040.co>, <123-hp-oj8040.com>, <123-hp-ojpro3610.co>, <123-hp-ojpro3610.com>, <123-hp-ojpro6230.co>, <123-hp-ojpro6230.com>, <123-hp-ojpro6830.co>, <123-hp-ojpro6830.com>, <123-hp-ojpro8610.co>, <123-hp-ojpro8610.com>, <123-hp-ojpro8620.co>, <123-hp-ojpro8620.com>, <123-hp-ojpro8630.co>, <123-hp-ojpro8630.com>, <123-hp-ojpro8640.co>, <123-hp-ojpro8640.com>, <123-hp-ojpro8650.co>, <123-hp-ojpro8650.com>, <123-hp-ojpro8660.co>, <123-hp-ojpro8660.com>, <123-hp-ojpro8710.co>, <123-hp-ojpro8710.com>, <123-hp-ojpro8720.co>, <123-hp-ojpro8720.com>, <123-hp-ojpro8740.co>, <123-hp-ojpro8740.com>, <123hp-printer-setup.com>, <123-hp-printer-setup.com>, <123hp-setup.co>, <123hp-setup.com>, <123hpsetup.help>, <123hpsetup.org>, <123hpsetup.support>, <123hpsetup.tech>, <123-hp-setup-envy.com>, <123-hp-setup-officejet.com>, <123hpsetupoj.com>, <123hpsetupojpro.com>, <123hpsetupprinter.co>, <123hpsetupprinter.com>, <hp-123.co>, <hp-123.com>, <hp-chat.support>, <hp-com.co>, <hpofficejet.pro>, <hp-officejet.pro>, <hp-oj.pro>, <hp-setup.co>, <hp-setup.com>, <hpdeskjet.support>, <hpenvy.co>, <hpenvy.support>, <hplaserjet.co>, <hplaserjet.support>, <hpofficejet.support>, <hpphotosmart.support>, <hpprinterassistant.co>, <hpprinterassistant.info>, and <hpprinterassistant.org> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s HP mark as they incorporate the mark in its entirety while adding generic terms (“assistant,” “chat,” “printer,” “pro,” or “setup”), Complainant’s other marks for its printer products (“deskjet,” “envy,” “officejet,” or “photosmart”), abbreviations of those marks (“dj,” “oj,” or “ojp”), the number sequence “123,” hyphens, and/or appends a generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) (“.com,” “.info,” “.support,” “.tech,” “.org,” or “.help”), or a country code top-level domain (“ccTLD”) (“.co”).
ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <123hp.co>, <1-2-3hp.com>, <123hp.help>, <123-hp-deskjet.com>, <123-hp-dj.com>, <123-hp-envy.com>, <123-hp-envy4500.co>, <123-hp-envy4500.com>, <123-hp-envy4510.co>, <123-hp-envy4510.com>, <123-hp-envy4520.co>, <123-hp-envy4520.com>, <123-hp-envy5530.co>, <123-hp-envy5540.com>, <123-hp-envy5640.co>, <123-hp-envy5640.com>, <123-hp-envy5660.co>, <123-hp-envy5660.com>, <123-hp-envy5740.co>, <123-hp-envy5740.com>, <123-hp-envy7640.co>, <123-hp-envy7640.com>, <123-hp-envy7645.co>, <123-hp-envy7645.com>, <123-hp-officejet.com>, <123hpofficejet.pro>, <123-hp-officejet.pro>, <123-hp-officejetpro.com>, <123-hp-oj.com>, <123hpoj.pro>, <123hp-oj.pro>, <123-hp-oj.pro>, <123-hp-oj3830.co>, <123-hp-oj3830.com>, <123-hp-oj4620.co>, <123-hp-oj4620.com>, <123-hp-oj4630.co>, <123-hp-oj4630.com>, <123-hp-oj4650.co>, <123-hp-oj4650.com>, <123-hp-oj4655.co>, <123-hp-oj4655.com>, <123-hp-oj5740.co>, <123-hp-oj5740.com>, <123-hp-oj6100.co>, <123-hp-oj6100.com>, <123-hp-oj6600.co>, <123-hp-oj6600.com>, <123-hp-oj6700.co>, <123-hp-oj6700.com>, <123-hp-oj6800.co>, <123-hp-oj6800.com>, <123-hp-oj7110.co>, <123-hp-oj7110.com>, <123-hp-oj7510.co>, <123-hp-oj7510.com>, <123-hp-oj7610.co>, <123-hp-oj7610.com>, <123-hp-oj8040.co>, <123-hp-oj8040.com>, <123-hp-ojpro3610.co>, <123-hp-ojpro3610.com>, <123-hp-ojpro6230.co>, <123-hp-ojpro6230.com>, <123-hp-ojpro6830.co>, <123-hp-ojpro6830.com>, <123-hp-ojpro8610.co>, <123-hp-ojpro8610.com>, <123-hp-ojpro8620.co>, <123-hp-ojpro8620.com>, <123-hp-ojpro8630.co>, <123-hp-ojpro8630.com>, <123-hp-ojpro8640.co>, <123-hp-ojpro8640.com>, <123-hp-ojpro8650.co>, <123-hp-ojpro8650.com>, <123-hp-ojpro8660.co>, <123-hp-ojpro8660.com>, <123-hp-ojpro8710.co>, <123-hp-ojpro8710.com>, <123-hp-ojpro8720.co>, <123-hp-ojpro8720.com>, <123-hp-ojpro8740.co>, <123-hp-ojpro8740.com>, <123hp-printer-setup.com>, <123-hp-printer-setup.com>, <123hp-setup.co>, <123hp-setup.com>, <123hpsetup.help>, <123hpsetup.org>, <123hpsetup.support>, <123hpsetup.tech>, <123-hp-setup-envy.com>, <123-hp-setup-officejet.com>, <123hpsetupoj.com>, <123hpsetupojpro.com>, <123hpsetupprinter.co>, <123hpsetupprinter.com>, <hp-123.co>, <hp-123.com>, <hp-chat.support>, <hp-com.co>, <hpofficejet.pro>, <hp-officejet.pro>, <hp-oj.pro>, <hp-setup.co>, <hp-setup.com>, <hpdeskjet.support>, <hpenvy.co>, <hpenvy.support>, <hplaserjet.co>, <hplaserjet.support>, <hpofficejet.support>, <hpphotosmart.support>, <hpprinterassistant.co>, <hpprinterassistant.info>, and <hpprinterassistant.org> domain names. Respondent is not licensed or otherwise authorized to use Complainant’s HP mark and is not commonly known by the disputed domain names. Addtionally, Respondent fails to use the disputed domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, Respodnent’s active websites prominently features Complainant’s HP and related marks to pass off as Complainant and offer a competing, tehcnical support service. Respondent’s disclaimers located at the active domain names are insufficient as they are too ambgious and inconspicous. Furthermore, the rest of the disputed domain names which do not resolve to active websites are being passively held.
iii) Respondent registered and uses the <123hp.co>, <1-2-3hp.com>, <123hp.help>, <123-hp-deskjet.com>, <123-hp-dj.com>, <123-hp-envy.com>, <123-hp-envy4500.co>, <123-hp-envy4500.com>, <123-hp-envy4510.co>, <123-hp-envy4510.com>, <123-hp-envy4520.co>, <123-hp-envy4520.com>, <123-hp-envy5530.co>, <123-hp-envy5540.com>, <123-hp-envy5640.co>, <123-hp-envy5640.com>, <123-hp-envy5660.co>, <123-hp-envy5660.com>, <123-hp-envy5740.co>, <123-hp-envy5740.com>, <123-hp-envy7640.co>, <123-hp-envy7640.com>, <123-hp-envy7645.co>, <123-hp-envy7645.com>, <123-hp-officejet.com>, <123hpofficejet.pro>, <123-hp-officejet.pro>, <123-hp-officejetpro.com>, <123-hp-oj.com>, <123hpoj.pro>, <123hp-oj.pro>, <123-hp-oj.pro>, <123-hp-oj3830.co>, <123-hp-oj3830.com>, <123-hp-oj4620.co>, <123-hp-oj4620.com>, <123-hp-oj4630.co>, <123-hp-oj4630.com>, <123-hp-oj4650.co>, <123-hp-oj4650.com>, <123-hp-oj4655.co>, <123-hp-oj4655.com>, <123-hp-oj5740.co>, <123-hp-oj5740.com>, <123-hp-oj6100.co>, <123-hp-oj6100.com>, <123-hp-oj6600.co>, <123-hp-oj6600.com>, <123-hp-oj6700.co>, <123-hp-oj6700.com>, <123-hp-oj6800.co>, <123-hp-oj6800.com>, <123-hp-oj7110.co>, <123-hp-oj7110.com>, <123-hp-oj7510.co>, <123-hp-oj7510.com>, <123-hp-oj7610.co>, <123-hp-oj7610.com>, <123-hp-oj8040.co>, <123-hp-oj8040.com>, <123-hp-ojpro3610.co>, <123-hp-ojpro3610.com>, <123-hp-ojpro6230.co>, <123-hp-ojpro6230.com>, <123-hp-ojpro6830.co>, <123-hp-ojpro6830.com>, <123-hp-ojpro8610.co>, <123-hp-ojpro8610.com>, <123-hp-ojpro8620.co>, <123-hp-ojpro8620.com>, <123-hp-ojpro8630.co>, <123-hp-ojpro8630.com>, <123-hp-ojpro8640.co>, <123-hp-ojpro8640.com>, <123-hp-ojpro8650.co>, <123-hp-ojpro8650.com>, <123-hp-ojpro8660.co>, <123-hp-ojpro8660.com>, <123-hp-ojpro8710.co>, <123-hp-ojpro8710.com>, <123-hp-ojpro8720.co>, <123-hp-ojpro8720.com>, <123-hp-ojpro8740.co>, <123-hp-ojpro8740.com>, <123hp-printer-setup.com>, <123-hp-printer-setup.com>, <123hp-setup.co>, <123hp-setup.com>, <123hpsetup.help>, <123hpsetup.org>, <123hpsetup.support>, <123hpsetup.tech>, <123-hp-setup-envy.com>, <123-hp-setup-officejet.com>, <123hpsetupoj.com>, <123hpsetupojpro.com>, <123hpsetupprinter.co>, <123hpsetupprinter.com>, <hp-123.co>, <hp-123.com>, <hp-chat.support>, <hp-com.co>, <hpofficejet.pro>, <hp-officejet.pro>, <hp-oj.pro>, <hp-setup.co>, <hp-setup.com>, <hpdeskjet.support>, <hpenvy.co>, <hpenvy.support>, <hplaserjet.co>, <hplaserjet.support>, <hpofficejet.support>, <hpphotosmart.support>, <hpprinterassistant.co>, <hpprinterassistant.info>, and <hpprinterassistant.org> domain names in bad faith. Respondent’s registration of 117 disputed domain names indicates a pattern of bad faith registration. Additionally, Respondent attempts to disrupt Complainants’ business and attract, for commercial gain, users to the disputed domain names where it passes off as Complainant to offer competing, technical support services. Respondent also failed to actively use several of the disputed domain names. Further, Respondent engaged in typosquatting when it registered the disputed domain names. Respondent also registered the disputed domain names with false or misleading WHOIS information. Finally, Respondent had actual and constructive knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the HP marks prior to registering and subsequent use of the disputed domain names.
B. Respondent
Respondent apologizes for the use of Complainant’s HP mark; however, the disputed domain names contain disclaimers which point out that Respondent is a third party, independent service provider. Respondent states that it will remove Complainant’s HP mark from the disputed domain names. The usage was primarily for search preferences.
1. Complainant has established rights in the HP mark through its trademark registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 1,116,835, registered Apr. 24, 1979). Complainant has also established rights in the marks DESKJET (e.g., Reg. No. 1,498,420, registered Aug. 2, 1988), ENVY (e.g., Reg. No. 4,271,615, registered Jan. 8, 2013), OFFICEJET (e.g., Reg. No. 1,968,861, registered Apr. 16, 1996), LASERJET (e.g., Reg. No. 1,458,061, registered Sep. 22, 1987), and PHOTOSMART (e.g., Reg. No. 2,362,503, registered Jun. 27, 2000) through its trademark registrations with USPTO.
2. All of the disputed domain names were registered mostly in 2015 and 2016 long after the registration date of each of the Complainant's marks: (HP, Reg. No.1,116,835, registered April 24, 1979); (DESKJET, Reg. No. 1,498,420, registered Aug. 2, 1988); (ENVY, Reg. No. 4,271,615, registered Jan. 8, 2013); (OFFICEJET, Reg. No. 1,968,861, registered Apr. 16, 1996); (LASERJET, Reg. No. 1,458,061, registered Sep. 22, 1987); and (PHOTOSMART, Reg. No. 2,362,503, registered Jun. 27, 2000).
3. A group of the disputed domain names resolves to website that features the same toll-free number and offers competing, technical support services for Complainant’s products.
4. A group of the disputed domain names does not resolve to an active webpage.
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.
Complainant claims rights in the HP mark based upon registration of the mark with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 1,116,835, registered Apr. 24, 1979). See Compl. Ex. G. Registration of a mark with the USPTO is sufficient to establish rights in that mark. See Home Depot Product Authority, LLC v. Samy Yosef / Express Transporting, FA 1738124 (Forum July 28, 2017) (finding that registration with the USPTO was sufficient to establish the complainant’s rights in the HOME DEPOT mark). The Panel also notes Complainant provides copies of its USPTO registrations for the DESKJET (e.g., Reg. No. 1,498,420, registered Aug. 2, 1988), ENVY (e.g., Reg. No. 4,271,615, registered Jan. 8, 2013), OFFICEJET (e.g., Reg. No. 1,968,861, registered Apr. 16, 1996), LASERJET (e.g., Reg. No. 1,458,061, registered Sep. 22, 1987), and PHOTOSMART (e.g., Reg. No. 2,362,503, registered Jun. 27, 2000) marks. See Compl. Ex. J & Amend. Compl. Ex. J1. The Panel therefore holds that Complainant’s registration of the HP mark with the USPTO is sufficient to establish rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant next argues Respondent’s <123hp.co>, <1-2-3hp.com>, <123hp.help>, <123-hp-deskjet.com>, <123-hp-dj.com>, <123-hp-envy.com>, <123-hp-envy4500.co>, <123-hp-envy4500.com>, <123-hp-envy4510.co>, <123-hp-envy4510.com>, <123-hp-envy4520.co>, <123-hp-envy4520.com>, <123-hp-envy5530.co>, <123-hp-envy5540.com>, <123-hp-envy5640.co>, <123-hp-envy5640.com>, <123-hp-envy5660.co>, <123-hp-envy5660.com>, <123-hp-envy5740.co>, <123-hp-envy5740.com>, <123-hp-envy7640.co>, <123-hp-envy7640.com>, <123-hp-envy7645.co>, <123-hp-envy7645.com>, <123-hp-officejet.com>, <123hpofficejet.pro>, <123-hp-officejet.pro>, <123-hp-officejetpro.com>, <123-hp-oj.com>, <123hpoj.pro>, <123hp-oj.pro>, <123-hp-oj.pro>, <123-hp-oj3830.co>, <123-hp-oj3830.com>, <123-hp-oj4620.co>, <123-hp-oj4620.com>, <123-hp-oj4630.co>, <123-hp-oj4630.com>, <123-hp-oj4650.co>, <123-hp-oj4650.com>, <123-hp-oj4655.co>, <123-hp-oj4655.com>, <123-hp-oj5740.co>, <123-hp-oj5740.com>, <123-hp-oj6100.co>, <123-hp-oj6100.com>, <123-hp-oj6600.co>, <123-hp-oj6600.com>, <123-hp-oj6700.co>, <123-hp-oj6700.com>, <123-hp-oj6800.co>, <123-hp-oj6800.com>, <123-hp-oj7110.co>, <123-hp-oj7110.com>, <123-hp-oj7510.co>, <123-hp-oj7510.com>, <123-hp-oj7610.co>, <123-hp-oj7610.com>, <123-hp-oj8040.co>, <123-hp-oj8040.com>, <123-hp-ojpro3610.co>, <123-hp-ojpro3610.com>, <123-hp-ojpro6230.co>, <123-hp-ojpro6230.com>, <123-hp-ojpro6830.co>, <123-hp-ojpro6830.com>, <123-hp-ojpro8610.co>, <123-hp-ojpro8610.com>, <123-hp-ojpro8620.co>, <123-hp-ojpro8620.com>, <123-hp-ojpro8630.co>, <123-hp-ojpro8630.com>, <123-hp-ojpro8640.co>, <123-hp-ojpro8640.com>, <123-hp-ojpro8650.co>, <123-hp-ojpro8650.com>, <123-hp-ojpro8660.co>, <123-hp-ojpro8660.com>, <123-hp-ojpro8710.co>, <123-hp-ojpro8710.com>, <123-hp-ojpro8720.co>, <123-hp-ojpro8720.com>, <123-hp-ojpro8740.co>, <123-hp-ojpro8740.com>, <123hp-printer-setup.com>, <123-hp-printer-setup.com>, <123hp-setup.co>, <123hp-setup.com>, <123hpsetup.help>, <123hpsetup.org>, <123hpsetup.support>, <123hpsetup.tech>, <123-hp-setup-envy.com>, <123-hp-setup-officejet.com>, <123hpsetupoj.com>, <123hpsetupojpro.com>, <123hpsetupprinter.co>, <123hpsetupprinter.com>, <hp-123.co>, <hp-123.com>, <hp-chat.support>, <hp-com.co>, <hpofficejet.pro>, <hp-officejet.pro>, <hp-oj.pro>, <hp-setup.co>, <hp-setup.com>, <hpdeskjet.support>, <hpenvy.co>, <hpenvy.support>, <hplaserjet.co>, <hplaserjet.support>, <hpofficejet.support>, <hpphotosmart.support>, <hpprinterassistant.co>, <hpprinterassistant.info>, and <hpprinterassistant.org> domain names are confusingly similar to the HP mark, as the name incorporates the mark in its entirety while adding generic terms (“assistant,” “chat,” “printer,” “pro,” or “setup”), Complainant’s other marks for its printer products (“deskjet,” “envy,” “officejet,” or “photosmart”), abbreviations of those marks (“dj,” “oj,” or “ojp”), the number sequence “123,” hyphens, and/or appends a gTLD (“.com,” “.info,” “.support,” “.tech,” “.org,” or “.help”), or a country code top-level domain ccTLD (“.co”). Such changes are not sufficient to distinguish a domain name from an incorporated mark in a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis. 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)); see also Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. v. Yangxiaoyi / Qingyuan Tianheng Trading Company Ltd., FA 1625637 (Forum June 23, 2015) (finding the combination of a complainant’s marks does not allow a respondent to avoid a finding of confusing similarity under Policy ¶4(a)(i)); Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation v Domain Admin / PrivacyProtect.org / Denis Ferulev, FA 1652313 (Forum Jan. 19, 2016) (“Complainant notes that the domain name contains the recognised acronym for its FAMILY GUY mark, along with the number ‘24’ … the Panel finds that the <fg24.biz> domain name is confusingly similar to the FAMILY GUY mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”); Daniel Handler v. Masanori Toriimoto / PLAN-B Co.,Ltd, FA 1778986 (Forum May 7, 2018) (finding that hyphens and top-level domains are irrelevant for purposes of the Policy); Transamerica Corporation v. Whois Foundation, FA 1700616 (Forum Dec. 5, 2016) (“For the purposes of comparison of the domain name and the trademark, it is agreed by panelists that ccTLDs can generally be disregarded”). The Panel therefore determines the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the HP mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), then 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 argues that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names, as Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Complainant authorized Respondent to use the HP mark in any way. Regardless of whether a response was submitted, WHOIS information can support a finding that the respondent is not commonly known by a disputed domain name. See Philip Morris USA Inc. v. Usama Ramzan, FA 1737750 (Forum July 26, 2017) (“We begin by noting that Complainant contends, and Respondent does not deny, that Respondent has not been commonly known by the <marlborocoupon.us> domain name, and that Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use the MARLBORO mark in any way. Moreover, the pertinent WHOIS information identifies the registrant of the domain name only as “Usama Ramzan,” which does not resemble the domain name. On this record, we conclude that Respondent has not been commonly known by the challenged domain name so as to have acquired rights to or legitimate interests in it within the purview of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).”). The WHOIS information of record identifies the registrant of the disputed domain names as “Lekiam Danny,” “Lavanya Clement,” or “WEB ADMIN,” and no information on the record indicates Respondent was authorized to register the domain names incorporating Complainant’s mark. See Compl. Ex. A.
Complainant further argues Respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names is demonstrated by its failure to use the names to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Complainant contends instead that the names resolve to a competing website. Such use is not indicative of rights or legitimate interests per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See 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).”). Specifically, Complainant contends that a group of the disputed domain names resolves to website that features the same toll-free number and offers competing, technical support services for Complainant’s products. See Compl. Ex. K & Amend. Compl. Ex. K1. Complainant argues that the website gives the false impression that it is affiliated with, and authorized by, Complainant.
Further, Complainant also asserts Respondent’s inactive holding of the other group of disputed domain names indicates it does not have rights or legitimate interests in the names. Inactive holding of a domain name does not demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in the name per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See George Weston Bakeries Inc. v. McBroom, FA 933276 (Forum Apr. 25, 2007) (finding that the respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in a domain name under either Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) where it failed to make any active use of the domain name). Complainant contends Respondent’s domain names do not resolve to an active webpage. See Compl. Ex. M & Amend. Compl. Ex. M1.
Given the considerations above, the Panel finds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case. As the onus thus shifts to Respondent, the Panel must now see if Respondent has rebutted the prima face case and shown that it has a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain names.
Respondent contends that the disputed domain names contain disclaimers which point out that Respondent is a third party, independent service provider; and that the usage was primarily for search preferences.
Complainant argues that the mere existence of a disclaimer on a webpage is not sufficient to confer rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See Las Vegas Sands, Inc. v. Red Group, D2001-1057 (WIPO Dec. 6, 2001) (justifying the conclusion that the respondent wishes to trade on the fame of the complainant’s trademark, regardless of the presence of a small-print disclaimer that is unavailable to Internet users until they have already entered the gambling site, because the disclaimer fails to remedy initial confusion). Complainant claims the disclaimer on the resolving website is especially insufficient as it is in small font at the bottom of the page. See Compl. Ex. L. The Panel determines the disclaimer is insufficient and therefore is not indicative of rights or legitimate interests in the domain names per Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
As the Panel finds that Respondent has failed to rebut the prima facie case against it, it concludes that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.
Complainant contends Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain names is part of a pattern of bad faith registration and use of domain names. A pattern of bad faith registration can be established by a showing of a respondent’s registration of multiple domain names incorporating a complainant’s mark, and such a pattern can indicate bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). See Microsoft Corporation and Skype v. zhong biao zhang / Unknown company / zhong zhang, FA1401001538218 (Forum Feb. 20, 2014) (holding that the respondent’s registration of three domain names incorporating variants of the complainant’s SKYPE mark reflected a pattern of bad faith registration under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii)). The Panel notes that Respondent registered 117 domain names in the present case. The Panel therefore determines that the registration and use of the disputed domain names is part of a pattern and is evidence of Respondent’s bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii)
Complainant claims Respondent’s use of the disputed domain names to pass off as Complainant in order to compete with Complainant’s business demonstrates that Respondent registered and used the domain names in bad faith. Use of a domain name to create a false impression of affiliation with a complainant in order to compete with and disrupt the complainant’s business is behavior indicative of bad faith registration and use per Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv). See Fitness International, LLC v. ALISTAIR SWODECK / VICTOR AND MURRAY, FA1506001623644 (Forum July 9, 2015) (“Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to operate a website that purports to offer health club related services such as fitness experts, fitness models, fitness venues, exercise programs, and personal training, all of which are the exact services offered by Complainant. Doing so causes customer confusion, disrupts Complainant’s business, and demonstrates Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).”); see also Am. Int’l Group, Inc. v. Busby, FA 156251 (Forum May 30, 2003) (finding that the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith where the respondent hosted a website that “duplicated Complainant’s mark and logo, giving every appearance of being associated or affiliated with Complainant’s business . . . to perpetrate a fraud upon individual shareholders who respected the goodwill surrounding the AIG mark”); Citadel LLC and its related entity, KCG IP Holdings, LLC v. Joel Lespinasse / Radius Group, FA1409001579141 (Forum Oct. 15, 2014) (“Here, the Panel finds evidence of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) bad faith as Respondent has used the confusingly similar domain name to promote its own financial management and consulting services in competition with Complainant.”). Complainant claims that a group of the disputed domain names resolves to a website upon which Respondent displays a facsimile of Complainant’s logo(s) and offers competing, technical support services in direct competition with Complainant’s business. See Compl. Ex. K & Amend. Compl. Ex. K1. The Panel therefore finds Respondent registered and used the disputed domain names in bad faith per Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and/or (iv).
Complainant asserts that Respondent’s failure to use the disputed domain names is evidence of its bad faith. The Panel recalls Complainant’s contention that a group of the disputed domain names does not resolve to an active website. See Compl. Ex. M & Amend. Compl. Ex. M1.
The Panel agrees that the passive holding of a domain name does not necessarily circumvent a finding that the domain name is being used in bad faith within the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. See Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003 (finding that in considering whether the passive holding of a domain name, following a bad faith registration of it, satisfies the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(iii), the panel must give close attention to all the circumstances of the respondent’s behavior, and a remedy can be obtained under the Policy only if those circumstances show that the respondent’s passive holding amounts to acting in bad faith.)
The particular circumstances of this case that the Panel has considered are:
i) Complainant is a leading global provider of printers, PCs, mobile devices, solutions, and services. See Complainant's Exhibit E. Complainant’s website <hp.com> is one of the most visited websites in the United States and Worldwide, and the No. 1 most visited site in the category of computer hardware, according to statics provided by Alexa Internet. Id. Complainant ranks 58th on the Fortune 500 and 190th on the Global 500. Id. Complainant has used the “HP” trademark since at least as early as 1941 and has invested tremendous resources in promoting this trademark over the last 75 years. As a result of Complainant’s promotional efforts and commercial success, the HP trademark has become famous and is consistently recognized as being among the world’s most recognized and valuable brands. See e.g. Complainant's Exhibit F (Interbrand’s Best Global Brands rankings from 2001 and 2013-2018). Complainant's HP trademark has been found by previous UDRP Panelists to be distinctive, well-known and famous; and
ii) Respondent has provided no evidence whatsoever of any actual or contemplated good faith use by it of the disputed domain names.
Taking into account all of the above, the Panel concludes that Respondent’s passive holding of the disputed domain names constitutes bad faith under Policy, paragraph 4(a)(iii) and that Respondent is using the disputed domain names in bad faith.
Furthermore, Complainant claims Respondent engaged in typosquatting when it intentionally registered domain names with misspellings of Complainant’s core <123.hp.com> and other domain names. The Panel observes that typosquatting may be indicative of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Webster Financial Corporation and Webster Bank, National Association v. IS / ICS INC, FA 16070016833 (Forum Aug. 11, 2016) (“Typosquatting is a practice whereby a domain name registrant, such as Respondent, deliberately introduces typographical errors or misspellings into a trademark and then uses the string in a domain name. The conniving registrant wishes and hopes that Internet users will inadvertently type the malformed trademark or read the domain name and believe it is legitimately associated with the target trademark. In doing so, wayward Internet users are fraudulently directed to a web presence controlled by the confusingly similar domain name’s registrant.”). The Panel therefore determines that Respondent engaged in typosquatting when it registered the disputed domain names.
Complainant also contends that in light of the fame and notoriety of Complainant's HP mark, it is inconceivable that Respondent could have registered the disputed domain names without actual and/or constructive knowledge of Complainant's rights in the mark. Complainant further asserts that Respondent’s use of the domain names to offer competing services indicates it had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights.
The Panel finds that any arguments of bad faith based on constructive notice are irrelevant, however, because UDRP case precedent declines to find bad faith as a result of constructive knowledge. See The Way Int'l, Inc. v. Diamond Peters, D2003-0264 (WIPO May 29, 2003) ("As to constructive knowledge, the Panel takes the view that there is no place for such a concept under the Policy."). The Panel, however, infers due to the fame of Complainant's mark and the manner of use of the disputed domain names that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the mark prior to registering the disputed domain names and finds that actual knowledge is adequate evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Orbitz Worldwide, LLC v. Domain Librarian, FA 1535826 (Forum Feb. 6, 2014) (“The Panel notes that although the UDRP does not recognize ‘constructive notice’ as sufficient grounds for finding Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) bad faith, the Panel here finds actual knowledge through the name used for the domain and the use made of it.”).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <123hp.co>, <1-2-3hp.com>, <123hp.help>, <123-hp-deskjet.com>, <123-hp-dj.com>, <123-hp-envy.com>, <123-hp-envy4500.co>, <123-hp-envy4500.com>, <123-hp-envy4510.co>, <123-hp-envy4510.com>, <123-hp-envy4520.co>, <123-hp-envy4520.com>, <123-hp-envy5530.co>, <123-hp-envy5540.com>, <123-hp-envy5640.co>, <123-hp-envy5640.com>, <123-hp-envy5660.co>, <123-hp-envy5660.com>, <123-hp-envy5740.co>, <123-hp-envy5740.com>, <123-hp-envy7640.co>, <123-hp-envy7640.com>, <123-hp-envy7645.co>, <123-hp-envy7645.com>, <123-hp-officejet.com>, <123hpofficejet.pro>, <123-hp-officejet.pro>, <123-hp-officejetpro.com>, <123-hp-oj.com>, <123hpoj.pro>, <123hp-oj.pro>, <123-hp-oj.pro>, <123-hp-oj3830.co>, <123-hp-oj3830.com>, <123-hp-oj4620.co>, <123-hp-oj4620.com>, <123-hp-oj4630.co>, <123-hp-oj4630.com>, <123-hp-oj4650.co>, <123-hp-oj4650.com>, <123-hp-oj4655.co>, <123-hp-oj4655.com>, <123-hp-oj5740.co>, <123-hp-oj5740.com>, <123-hp-oj6100.co>, <123-hp-oj6100.com>, <123-hp-oj6600.co>, <123-hp-oj6600.com>, <123-hp-oj6700.co>, <123-hp-oj6700.com>, <123-hp-oj6800.co>, <123-hp-oj6800.com>, <123-hp-oj7110.co>, <123-hp-oj7110.com>, <123-hp-oj7510.co>, <123-hp-oj7510.com>, <123-hp-oj7610.co>, <123-hp-oj7610.com>, <123-hp-oj8040.co>, <123-hp-oj8040.com>, <123-hp-ojpro3610.co>, <123-hp-ojpro3610.com>, <123-hp-ojpro6230.co>, <123-hp-ojpro6230.com>, <123-hp-ojpro6830.co>, <123-hp-ojpro6830.com>, <123-hp-ojpro8610.co>, <123-hp-ojpro8610.com>, <123-hp-ojpro8620.co>, <123-hp-ojpro8620.com>, <123-hp-ojpro8630.co>, <123-hp-ojpro8630.com>, <123-hp-ojpro8640.co>, <123-hp-ojpro8640.com>, <123-hp-ojpro8650.co>, <123-hp-ojpro8650.com>, <123-hp-ojpro8660.co>, <123-hp-ojpro8660.com>, <123-hp-ojpro8710.co>, <123-hp-ojpro8710.com>, <123-hp-ojpro8720.co>, <123-hp-ojpro8720.com>, <123-hp-ojpro8740.co>, <123-hp-ojpro8740.com>, <123hp-printer-setup.com>, <123-hp-printer-setup.com>, <123hp-setup.co>, <123hp-setup.com>, <123hpsetup.help>, <123hpsetup.org>, <123hpsetup.support>, <123hpsetup.tech>, <123-hp-setup-envy.com>, <123-hp-setup-officejet.com>, <123hpsetupoj.com>, <123hpsetupojpro.com>, <123hpsetupprinter.co>, <123hpsetupprinter.com>, <hp-123.co>, <hp-123.com>, <hp-chat.support>, <hp-com.co>, <hpofficejet.pro>, <hp-officejet.pro>, <hp-oj.pro>, <hp-setup.co>, <hp-setup.com>, <hpdeskjet.support>, <hpenvy.co>, <hpenvy.support>, <hplaserjet.co>, <hplaserjet.support>, <hpofficejet.support>, <hpphotosmart.support>, <hpprinterassistant.co>, <hpprinterassistant.info>, <hpprinterassistant.org> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Ho Hyun Nahm, Esq., Panelist
Dated: November 24, 2018
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page