Micro Electronics, Inc. v. L E
Claim Number: FA1705001731573
Complainant is Micro Electronics, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Shana T. Don of Scarinci Hollenbeck LLC, New York, USA. Respondent is L E (“Respondent”), District of Columbia, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <microcenter.today>, registered with NameCheap, 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.
The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.) as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on May 12, 2017; the Forum received payment on May 12, 2017.
On May 15, 2017, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <microcenter.today> domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameCheap, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameCheap, 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 May 22, 2017, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of June 12, 2017 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@microcenter.today. Also on May 22, 2017, 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 June 30, 2017, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed the Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.) 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 has rights in the MICRO CENTER mark based upon registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 1,552,264, registered Aug. 15, 1989). Respondent’s <microcenter.today> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark as it includes the entire mark—less the space—along with the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.today.”
Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <microcenter.today> domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Complainant has not licensed or authorized Respondent to use the MICRO CENTER mark. Respondent is not using the disputed domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or for a legitimate non-commercial or fair use. Rather, Respondent redirects users who enter the disputed domain name into the web browser to Complainant’s webpage.
Respondent registered and uses the <microcenter.today> domain name in bad faith. First, Respondent registered the disputed domain name using a privacy service, which generally implicates bad faith. Second, Respondent used false information when registering the disputed domain name. Once the real registrant information was revealed, the information shows the White House as the registrant’s address. Third, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s MICRO CENTER mark when registering the domain name. Fourth, Respondent’s sole use of the domain name is to redirect users to Complainant’s website.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Micro Electronics, Inc., has rights in the MICRO CENTER mark based upon registration with the USPTO (Reg. No. 1,552,264, registered Aug. 15, 1989). Respondent’s <microcenter.today> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark.
Respondent, L E, created the <microcenter.today> domain name on March 24, 2017.
Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <microcenter.today> domain name. Respondent redirects users who enter the domain name into the web browser to Complainant’s webpage.
Respondent registered and uses the <microcenter.today> domain name in bad faith.
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.”).
Complainant has rights in the MICRO CENTER mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) based upon registration with the USPTO. See Haas Automation, Inc. v. Jim Fraser, FA 1627211 (Forum Aug. 4, 2015) (finding that Complainant’s USPTO registrations for the HAAS mark sufficiently demonstrate its rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)).
Respondent’s <microcenter.today> domain name is confusingly similar to the MICRO CENTER mark as it contains the mark in its entirety, less the space, along with the gTLD “.today.”
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <microcenter.today> domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). Complainant authorized Respondent to use the MICRO CENTER mark. The WHOIS information of record identifies Respondent as “L E”. See Alaska Air Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines v. Song Bin, FA1408001574905 (Forum September 17, 2014) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name as demonstrated by the WHOIS information and based on the fact that the complainant had not licensed or authorized the respondent to use its ALASKA AIRLINES mark.); see also Navistar International Corporation v. N Rahmany, FA1505001620789 (Forum June 8, 2015) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name where the complainant had never authorized the respondent to incorporate its NAVISTAR mark in any domain name registration).
Respondent has failed to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use as Respondent is using the <microcenter.today> to redirect Internet users to Complainant’s website. See Direct Line Ins. plc v. Low-cost-domain, FA 1337658 (Forum Sept. 8, 2010) (“The Panel finds that using Complainant’s mark in a domain name over which Complainant has no control, even if the domain name redirects to Complainant’s actual site, is not consistent with the requirements of Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or ¶ 4(c)(iii)).
Respondent used a privacy service to conceal his identity when he registered the disputed domain name and therefore Respondent registered the domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Medco Health Solutions, Inc. v. Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc., D2004-0453 (WIPO Aug. 25. 2004) (concluding that the respondent’s efforts to disguise its true identity by using the privacy protection feature of the Registrar was an example of bad faith conduct).
Respondent registered the <microcenter.today> domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) by using false registration information. Falsifying registration information shows bad faith. See CNU ONLINE Holdings, LLC v. Domain Admin / Whois Privacy Corp., FA1504001614972 (Forum May 29, 2015) (“As the Panel sees that Respondent has provided false or misleading WHOIS information, the Panel finds bad faith in Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”). Once the privacy service was lifted, the address for the registrant was the address for the White House. Therefore, Respondent registered the domain name in bad faith by using false information.
Further, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s MICRO CENTER mark when registering the <microcenter.today> domain name. See Google Inc. v. Ahmed Humood, FA1411001591796 (Forum Jan. 7, 2015) (“This Panel makes that inference; Respondent has actual knowledge of Complainant’s mark at the time of domain name registration based on the fame of Complainant’s GOOGLE mark and Respondent’s use of one of the disputed domain names to detail Internet domain name registration and maintenance services related to an in competition with Complainant.). Therefore, Respondent registered the domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Finally, Respondent’s use of the <microcenter.today> domain name to redirect Internet traffic to Complainant’s own website is registration and use in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Verizon Trademark Servs. LLC v. Boyiko, FA 1382148 (Forum May 12, 2011) (“The Panel finds that Respondent’s registration and use of the confusingly similar disputed domain name, even where it resolves to Complainant’s own site, is still registration and use in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”).
Complainant having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <microcenter.today> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.), Panelist
Dated: June 30, 2017
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page