DECISION

 

Republic Services, Inc. v. linyanxiao

Claim Number: FA1708001745938

PARTIES

Complainant is Republic Services, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Blake Atkinson of Fennemore Craig, P.C., Arizona, USA.  Respondent is linyanxiao

(“Respondent”), China.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <republiconlin.com>, registered with 22net, Inc..

 

PANEL

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 Panelist in this proceeding.

 

John J. Upchurch as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on August 23, 2017; the Forum received payment on September 7, 2017. The Complaint was submitted in both Chinese and English.

 

On September 7, 2017, 22net, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <republiconlin.com> domain name is registered with 22net, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name.  22net, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the 22net, 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 September 8, 2017, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Chinese language Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 28, 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@republiconlin.com.  Also on September 8, 2017, the Chinese language 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 October 12, 2017, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed John J. Upchurch 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.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS

 

The Panel notes that the Registration Agreement is written in Chinese, thereby making the language of the proceedings in Chinese.

 

Pursuant to Rule 11(a), the Panel determines that the language requirement has been satisfied through the Chinese language Complaint and Commencement Notification, and, absent a Response, determines that the remainder of the proceedings may be conducted in English.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A.   Complainant:

1.    Complainant, Republic Services, Inc., uses the REPUBLIC mark to provide and market its waste management and disposal services. Complainant has rights in the mark based upon registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 4,084,686, registered Jan. 10, 2012.) See Compl. An. A1. Respondent’s <republiconlin.com> is confusingly similar as it contains Complainant’s mark in its entirety, merely adding the misspelling of the descriptive term “onlin” and the generic top level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.”

2.    Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <republiconlin.com> domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and Complainant has not granted respondent permission or license to use the REPUBLIC mark for any purpose. 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 is using the disputed domain name for an illegal phishing scheme.

3.    Respondent has registered and used the <republiconlin.com>   domain name in bad faith. Respondent uses the disputed domain name to disrupt the business of Complainant.

 

B.   Respondent:

1.    Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

1.    Respondent’s <republiconlin.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s REPUBLIC mark.

2.    Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <republiconlin.com> domain name.

3.    Respondent registered or used the <republiconlin.com> domain name in bad faith.

 

DISCUSSION

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.”).

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

Complainant claims rights in the REPUBLIC mark based upon its registration with the USPTO (Reg. No. 4,084,686, registered Jan. 10, 2012.) See Compl. An. A1. Registration with USPTO is sufficient to establish rights in a mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). 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)). Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the REPUBLIC mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Complainant asserts that <republiconlin.com> is confusingly similar to the REPUBLIC mark as it contains the mark in its entirety and adds the descriptive misspelled term “onlin” along with the gTLD “.com.” Panels have consistently found that slight differences between domain names and registered marks, such as the addition of words that describe the goods or services in connection with the mark or removal of a letter, are irrelevant and do not distinguish the domain name from the mark incorporated therein. See eBay Inc. v. eBay Motors, FA 1731822 (Forum June 26, 2017) (holding that “words like ‘online,’ which pertain to a complainant’s trademark-related activities—fails to sufficiently distinguish domain names from registered marks.”). Similarly, the addition of a gTLD is irrelevant in determining whether the disputed domain name is confusingly similar. See Trip Network Inc. v. Alviera, FA 914943 (Forum Mar. 27, 2007) (concluding that the affixation of a gTLD to a domain name is irrelevant to a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis). The Panel agrees with Complainant and finds that Respondent’s <republiconlin.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant’s REPUBLIC mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

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), and then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests.  See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006) (holding that the complainant must first make a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under UDRP ¶ 4(a)(ii) before the burden shifts to the respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in a domain name); see also AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Forum Sept. 25, 2006)

(“Complainant must first make a prima facie showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names, which burden is light.  If Complainant satisfies its burden, then the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain

names.”).

 

Complainant argues that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in <republiconlin.com> as Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Complainant authorized Respondent to use the REPUBLIC mark in any way. Where a response is lacking, WHOIS information can support a finding that a respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. See Alaska Air Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines v. Song Bin, FA1408001574905 (Forum Sept. 17, 2014) (holding 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.). The WHOIS information of record identifies Respondent as

“linyanxiao.”  Additionally, lack of evidence in the record to indicate that the respondent had been authorized to register a domain name using a

complainant’s mark supports a finding that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. See 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). The Panel therefore finds under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) that Respondent has not been commonly known by the disputed domain name.

 

Complainant further argues Respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name is evinced by their failure to use the <republiconlin.com> for a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use as instead, Complainant contends Respondent uses <republiconlin.com> for an illegal use. An illegal use of a confusingly similar domain name is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) & (iii). See Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Suzen Khan / Nancy Jain / Andrew Stanzy, FA 1741129 (Forum Aug. 16, 2017) (finding that respondent lacked rights and legitimate interests in a domain name with which it conducted a phishing scheme to procure “Internet users’ personal information”). Here, Respondent’s website displays a ‘pay my bill online’ link that is intended to deceive Complainant’s customers into providing sensitive and personal information and making payments to Respondent. See Compl. An. D. Therefore, the Panel agrees that such a use is not in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services and find the Respondent failed to use <republiconlin.com> in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) & (iii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Complainant argues that Respondent registered and uses the <republiconlin.com> domain name in bad faith because Respondent is intentionally attempting to attract for commercial gain Internet users to Respondent’s website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s REPUBLIC Marks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s website. Using a confusingly similar domain name to mislead users can evince bad faith registration and use per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See AOL LLC v. iTech Ent, LLC, FA 726227 (Forum July 21, 2006) (finding that the respondent took advantage of the confusing similarity between the <theotheraol.com> and <theotheraol.net> domain names and the complainant’s AOL mark, which indicates bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)). Here, Respondent’s website displays a ‘pay my bill online’ link that is intended to deceive Complainant’s customers into providing sensitive and personal information and making payments to Respondent. See Compl. An. D. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith pursuant Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).

 

 

DECISION

Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <republiconlin.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

John J. Upchurch, Panelist

Dated:  10/25/17