Coupang Corporation v. kim kyung tae
Claim Number: FA2103001939512
Complainant is Coupang Corporation (“Complainant”), represented by Jonathan Uffelman of Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is kim kyung tae (“Respondent”), Korea.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <copuang.com>, registered with Megazone Corp., dba HOSTING.KR.
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.
Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on March 29, 2021; the Forum received payment on March 29, 2021.
On March 30, 2021, Megazone Corp., dba HOSTING.KR confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <copuang.com> domain name is registered with Megazone Corp., dba HOSTING.KR and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Megazone Corp., dba HOSTING.KR has verified that Respondent is bound by the Megazone Corp., dba HOSTING.KR 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 2, 2021, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Korean and English language Written Notices of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 22, 2021 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@copuang.com. Also on April 2, 2021, the Korean and English language Written Notices 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 April 26, 2021, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Paul M. DeCicco 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.
Pursuant to UDRP Rule 11(a), the Panel finds that persuasive evidence has been adduced by Complainant to suggest the likely possibility that the Respondent is conversant and proficient in the English language. After considering the circumstance of the present case, the Panel decides that the proceeding should be in English.
A. Complainant
Complainant contends as follows:
Complainant is one of the largest and fastest-growing online retail shopping companies in the world.
Complainant has rights in the COUPANG mark through Complainant’s registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”).
Respondent’s <copuang.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s COUPANG mark because it incorporates Complainant’s COUPANG mark in its entirety, transposing only the “u” and “p,” and adding the non-distinguishing gTLD “.com.”
Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the <copuang.com> domain name. Respondent is not and has not been commonly known by the domain name. Respondent has not used the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services as Respondent uses the domain name to redirect Internet users to a commercial website unrelated to Complainant. Respondent also engaged in typosquatting.
Respondent registered and uses the <copuang.com> domain name in bad faith. First, Respondent registered a confusingly similar domain name to intentionally attract Internet users to Respondent’s own website offering commercial services unrelated to Complainant. Furthermore, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the COUPANG mark prior to registering the at-issue domain name, evidenced by the famous nature of Complainant’s mark. Finally, Respondent is engaged in typosquatting.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant has trademark rights in the COUPANG mark.
Respondent has not been authorized to use Complainant’s trademark.
Respondent registered the at-issue domain name after Complainant acquired rights in COUPANG.
Respondent’s uses the <copuang.com> domain name to redirect internet traffic to a commercial website unrelated to 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 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”).
The at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.
Complainant’s USPTO registration for its COUPANG trademark is sufficient to demonstrate Complainant’s rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), as is any one of COMPLAINANT’s other national registrations for such mark worldwide. See DIRECTV, LLC v. The Pearline Group, FA 1818749 (Forum Dec. 30, 2018) (“Complainant’s ownership of a USPTO registration for DIRECTV demonstrate its rights in such mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”).
Respondent’s <copuang.com> domain name contains Complainant’s COUPANG trademark with its “u” and “p” transposed with all followed by the top-level domain name “.com.” The differences between Respondent’s domain name and Complainant’s trademark are insufficient to distinguish the <copuang.com> domain name from Complainant’s COUPANG mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent’s <copuang.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s COUPANG trademark. See Bank of America Corporation v. Above.com Domain Privacy, FA 1629452 (Forum Aug. 18, 2015) (finding that the <blankofamerica.com> domain name contains the entire BANK OF AMERICA mark and merely adds the gTLD ‘.com’ and the letter ‘l’ to create a common misspelling of the word ‘bank.’).
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. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006). Since Respondent failed to respond, Complainant’s prima facie showing acts conclusively.
Respondent lacks both rights and legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant’s trademark in any capacity and, as discussed below, there are no Policy ¶4(c) circumstances from which the Panel might find that Respondent has rights or interests in respect of the at‑issue domain name. See Emerson Electric Co. v. golden humble / golden globals, FA 1787128 (Forum June 11, 2018) (“lack of evidence in the record to indicate a respondent is authorized to use [the] complainant’s mark may support a finding that [the] respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)”).
The WHOIS information for the at-issue domain name identifies the domain name’s registrant as “kim kyung tae” and the record before the Panel contains no evidence tending to prove that Respondent is commonly known by the <copuang.com> domain name. The Panel therefore concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by the <copuang.com> domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Braun Corp. v. Loney, FA 699652 (Forum July 7, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain names where the WHOIS information, as well as all other information in the record, gave no indication that the respondent was commonly known by the domain names, and the complainant had not authorized the respondent to register a domain name containing its registered mark).
Respondent uses the confusingly similar <copuang.com> domain name to redirect internet traffic to a commercial website that is unrelated to Complainant. The website appears to be related to online investments. Respondent’s use of the confusingly similar domain name in this manner indicates neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a non-commercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Spike's Holding, LLC v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1736008 (Forum July 21, 2017) (“Using a confusingly similar domain to display unrelated content can evince a lack of a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use… The Panel therefore finds that Respondent’s unrelated use of the <finishnline.com> domain name evinces a lack of rights and legitimate interests under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) & (iii).”). Furthermore, Respondent’s typosquating, as discussed below regarding registration and use in bad faith, likewise indicates Respondent’s lack of rights or legitmate interests in the at-issue domain name. See Eastman Chem. Co. v. Official Ksl, Case No. FA2003001888013 (Forum Apr. 13, 2020) (“Complainant alleges that Respondent is engaged in typosquatting by duplicating the EASTMAN mark with a slight deviation. Typosquatting provides additional evidence that a respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in a domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).”);
Given the forgoing, Complainant satisfies its initial burden and conclusively demonstrates Respondent’s lack of rights and lack of interests in respect of the at-issue domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Respondent’s <copuang.com> domain name was registered and used in bad faith. As discussed below without limitation, bad faith circumstances are present that compel the Panel to conclude that Respondent acted in bad faith regarding each domain name pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
As mentioned above with regard to rights and legitimate interest, Respondent uses the <copuang.com> domain name to redirect traffic to a third-party commercial website. Respondent’s use of the confusingly similar domain name in this manner constitutes attraction for commercial gain per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Sandhills Publishing Company v. sudeep banerjee / b3net.com, Inc., FA 1674572 (Forum June 17, 2016) (finding that the respondent took advantage of the confusing similarity between the <machinerytraderparts.com> domain name and the complainant’s MACHINERY TRADER mark, which indicates bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)); see also Microsoft Corporation v. Story Remix / Inofficial, FA 1734934 (Forum July 10, 2017) (finding bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the respondent was diverting Internet users searching for the complainant to its own website and likely profiting).
Respondent is also engaged in typosquatting. Typosquatting is a practice whereby a domain name registrant deliberately introduces typographical errors or misspellings into a trademark and then uses the string in a domain name wishing and hoping that internet users will inadvertently type the malformed string when searching for products or services associated with the target trademark, or will otherwise confuse a misspelled trademark laden domain name with the target trademark. Here, Respondent transposes the letters “u” and “p” in Complainant’s trademark to form the confusingly similar <copuang.com> domain name. Respondent’s typosquatting, in itself, is evidence of Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) bad faith. See Computerized Sec. Sys., Inc. v. Hu, FA 157321 (Forum June 23, 2003) (finding that the respondent engaged in typosquatting, which is evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)).
Finally, Respondent registered <copuang.com> knowing that Complainant had trademark rights in the COUPANG mark. Respondent’s prior knowledge is evident from the notoriety of Complainant’s trademark and from Respondent’s overt misspelling of such trademark in the at-issue domain name. The Panel thus finds that Respondent intentionally registered the at-issue domain name to improperly exploit its trademark value, rather than for some benign reason. Respondent’s prior knowledge of Complainant's trademark further indicates that Respondent registered and used the <copuang.com> domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent had "actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name").
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <copuang.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist
Dated: April 27, 2021
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page