Coupang Corporation v. Lian Wang
Claim Number: FA1903001836182
Complainant is Coupang Corporation (“Complainant”), represented by B. Brett Heavner of Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, United States of America. Respondent is Lian Wang (“Respondent”), Hong Kong.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <www-coupang.com> (‘the Domain Name’), registered with Above.com Pty Ltd.
The undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of 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 March 27, 2019; the Forum received payment on March 27, 2019.
On March 31, 2019, Above.com Pty Ltd. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <www-coupang.com> domain name is registered with Above.com Pty Ltd. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Above.com Pty Ltd. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Above.com Pty Ltd. 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 April 3, 2019, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 23, 2019 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@www-coupang.com. Also on April 3, 2019, 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 25 April, 2019, 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
The Complainant’s contentions can be summarized as follows:
The Complainant is the owner of the trade mark COUPANG registered, inter alia in Korea, for on line retail services as of 2010.
The Domain Name registered in 2019 is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark adding only ‘www’, a hyphen and the gTLD “.com” which do not prevent such confusing similarity.
The Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name and is not authorized by the Complainant.
The Domain Name has been pointed to pay per click links that compete with the Complainant. This use is not a bona fide offering of goods or service and is commercial so cannot be noncommercial legitimate or fair use.
Typosquatting and use of a privacy service are also indications of a lack of legitimate rights or interests in a Domain Name. All the above also demonstrates bad faith registration and use disruptive to the Complainant’s business. Typosquatting demonstrates bad faith per se and indicates the Respondent is aware of the Complainant and its rights. The use for pay per clicks links diverts and confuses Internet users for commercial gain.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
The Complainant is the owner of the trade mark COUPANG registered, inter alia in Korea, for on line retail services as of 2010.
The Domain Name registered in 2019 has been used for pay per click links and has been offered for sale.
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 set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at ¶ 4.3; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (“Because Complainant did not produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations [. . .] the Panel finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint”).
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Domain Name consists of the Complainant’s COUPANG mark (registered, inter alia, in Korea as of 2010 for on line retail services) the generic indication ‘www’ meaning World Wide Web, a hyphen and the gTLD “.com.” Previous panels have found confusing similarity when a respondent merely adds generic terms to a Complainant's mark. See PG&E Corp. v. Anderson, D2000-1264 (WIPO Nov. 22, 2000) (finding that respondent does not by adding common descriptive or generic terms create new or different marks nor does it alter the underlying mark held by the Complainant). Nor does the addition of a hyphen. See Health Devices Corp. v. Aspen STC, FA 158254 (Forum July 1, 2003) (The addition of punctuation marks such as hyphens is irrelevant in the determination of confusing similarity pursuant to Policy 4(a)(i)). Accordingly, the Panel agrees that the addition of the generic term ‘www’ and a hyphen to the Complainant's mark does not distinguish the Domain Name from the Complainant's trademark pursuant to the Policy.
The gTLD “.com” does not serve to distinguish the Domain Name from the Complainant’s mark, which is the distinctive component of the Domain Name. See Red Hat Inc. v. Haecke, FA 726010 (Forum July 24, 2006) (concluding that the redhat.org domain name is identical to the complainant's red hat mark because the mere addition of the gTLD was insufficient to differentiate the disputed domain name from the mark).
Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar for the purposes of the Policy with a mark in which the Complainant has rights.
As such, the Panel holds that Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been satisfied.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant has not authorized the use of its mark. There is no evidence or reason to suggest the Respondent is commonly known by the Domain Name.
The Respondent has used the site attached to the Domain Name to link to third party businesses that compete with the Complainant. He does not make it clear that there is no commercial connection with the Complainant. The Panel finds this use is confusing. As such it cannot amount to the bona fide offering of goods and services. See Ashley Furniture Industries Inc. v. domain admin /private registrations aitken Gesellschaft, FA 1506001626253 (Forum July 29, 2015) (linking to pay per click links does not amount to a bona fide offering of goods and services or a legitimate noncommercial fair use).
As such, the Panelist finds that the Respondent does not have rights or a legitimate interest in the Domain Name and that the Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
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 the Complainant. Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain Internet users to his website by creating likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trademarks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the web site likely to disrupt the business of the Complainant. See Health Republic Insurance Company v. Above.comLegal, FA 1506001622088, (Forum July 10, 2015) re: diversion to pay per click links.
The Domain Name has been offered to sale in bad faith contrary to Policy 4(b)(i). See DIRECTTV, LLC v. michal restl c/o Dynadot, FA 1788826 (Forum July 5, 2018).
Adding ‘www’ appears to be an attempt at typosquatting. Typosquatting itself is 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 Panelist believes that the 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 under para 4(b)(i), (iii), and (iv) and there is no need to consider further allegations of bad faith.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <www-coupang.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Dawn Osborne, Panelist
Dated: April 26, 2019
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page