SANMINA CORPORATION v. Zhang Peng

Even though the Respondent has defaulted, URS Procedure 1.2.6, requires Complainant to make a prima facie case, proven by clear and convincing evidence, for each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be suspended.

[URS 1.2.6.1] The registered domain name(s) is/are identical or confusingly similar to a word mark:
  (i) for which the Complainant holds a valid national or regional registration and that is in current use; or
  (ii) that has been validated through court proceedings; or
  (iii) that is specifically protected by a statute or treaty in effect at the time the URS complaint is filed.

Complainant holds a valid trademark for the mark SANMINA which is currently in use. The disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant's registered trademark. The addition of the gTLD "top" is irrelevant when considering the likeness between the disputed domain name and the Complainant's trademark. Complainant prevails according to URS 1.2.6.1(i).

[URS 1.2.6.2] Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name.

[URS 1.2.6.3] The domain name(s) was/were registered and is being used in bad faith.
  a. Registrant has registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of documented out-of pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
  b. Registrant has registered the domain name in order to prevent the trademark holder or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that Registrant has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
  c. Registrant registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
  d. By using the domain name Registrant has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain, Internet users to Registrant’s web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Registrant’s web site or location or of a product or service on that web site or location.

Complainant has shown that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. While there is no actual use of the disputed domain name, it is well established that the non-use of a domain name can be considered as bad faith registration and use if other facts show the Respondent bad faith. Such can be a pattern of abusive behavior by the Registrant. In the present case, Respondent has had three UDRP domain name disputes filed against him before the National Arbitration Forum and thus has shown a pattern of bad faith conduct. See Claim Nos. FA0807001214866, FA0808001220058, and FA1209001461726. In all three cases, the Respondent failed to submit a response and in all three the Panel transferred the domain names to its rightful owner. The Panel cites the following with approval: "Respondent has a history of bad faith registration evidenced by adverse UDRP decisions. Therefore, Respondent has engaged in bad faith registration and use….” Arrowhead Central Credit Union d/b/a Arrowhead Credit Union v Takashi Yamaguchi / bkt, FA 1591652 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 10, 2014); See also TRAVELOCITY.COM LP v. Aziz, FA 1260783 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 16, 2009) (“These previous [UDRP] decisions demonstrate a pattern of bad faith registration and use of domain names under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii).”). Additionally, Respondent is not making an active use of the disputed domain name. Complainant has supplied a screenshot of the error page which appears when an Internet user attempts to go to the <Sanmina.top> domain name. The Complainant registered the SANMINA trademark well before the Respondent registered the disputed domain name. The Complainant prevails under USR 1.2.6.3(b)

The Examiner may find that the Complaint was brought in an abuse of this proceeding or that it contained material falsehoods.

After reviewing the parties’ submissions, the Examiner determines that the Complainant has demonstrated all three elements of the URS by a standard of clear and convincing evidence; the Examiner hereby Orders the following domain name(s) be SUSPENDED for the duration of the registration:

sanmina.top

	Complainant Submitted: February 11, 2015
	Commencement: February 12, 2015
	Default Date: February 27, 2015
	Having reviewed the communications records, the Examiner finds that the National Arbitration Forum has discharged its responsibility under URS Procedure Paragraphs 3 and 4 and Rule 4 of the Rules for the Uniform Rapid Suspension System (the "Rules").

	Complainant: SANMINA CORPORATION of San Jose, CA, United States of America
	Complainant Representative: LOZA & LOZA, LLP Christina S. Loza of Upland, CA, United States of America

	Respondent: Zhang Peng ZhangPeng ZhangPeng of Xi An, Shan Xi, II, CN

	Registries: Jiangsu Bangning Science & Technology Co.,Ltd.
	Registrars: Jiangsu bangning science technology Co

	The undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his or her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Examiner in this proceeding.
	Jonathan Agmon, as Examiner