Dell Inc. v. li de zhi c/o li de zhi / LiDezhi c/o Li dezhi
Claim Number: FA1806001790173
Complainant is Dell Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by S. Erik Combs, Texas, USA. Respondent is li de zhi c/o li de zhi / LiDezhi c/o Li dezhi (“Respondent”), China.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <dell024.com>, <delldl.com>, and <dellhomewx.com>, registered with Alibaba Cloud Computing (Beijing) Co., Ltd.; and <dell138.com>, registered with Beijing Innovative Linkage Software Service Co. Ltd.
The undersigned certifies he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Houston Putnam Lowry, Chartered Arbitrator, as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on June 5, 2018; the Forum received payment on June 5, 2018. The Complaint was submitted in both Chinese and English.
On June 5, 2018, Alibaba Cloud Computing (Beijing) Co., Ltd. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <dell024.com>, <delldl.com>, and <dellhomewx.com> domain names are registered with Alibaba Cloud Computing (Beijing) Co., Ltd. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Alibaba Cloud Computing (Beijing) Co., Ltd. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Alibaba Cloud Computing (Beijing) Co., 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 June 5, 2018, Beijing Innovative Linkage Software Service Co. Ltd. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <dell138.com> domain name is registered with Beijing Innovative Linkage Software Service Co. Ltd. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Beijing Innovative Linkage Software Service Co. Ltd. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Beijing Innovative Linkage Software Service Co. Ltd. registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with the Policy.
On June 14, 2018, the Forum served the Chinese language Complaint and all Annexes, including a Chinese language Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 5, 2018 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@dell024.com, postmaster@dell138.com, postmaster@delldl.com, and postmaster@dellhomewx.com. Also on June 14, 2018, 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 July 9, 2018, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Houston Putnam Lowry, Chartered Arbitrator, 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 the domain names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Trademark/Service Mark Information:
i. Dell and its Business
Complainant Dell Inc. (“Complainant” or “Dell”) is a world leader in computers, computer accessories, and other computer-related products and services. Over the years, Dell has invested heavily in marketing under its marks, devoting hundreds of millions of dollars to advertising and promoting its products and services through many media in many countries. Dell has used television, radio, magazines, newspapers, and the Internet as marketing media. Dell has been, and continues to be, extremely successful. Dell sells its products and services in over 180 countries. For several years, Dell has been the world’s largest direct seller of computer systems. As a consequence of Dell’s marketing and sales success, Dell and its marks have become famous in the United States and many other countries, including China. More information about Dell can be found at www.dell.com and www.dell.com.cn, Dell’s official website for China. Moreover, Dell was recently ranked as a top 100 brand by Brand Finance in its “Global 500 – The Most Valuable Brands of 2018” list (http://brandirectory.com/league_tables/table/global-500-2018).
Complainant has used the famous mark DELL, as well as various other marks that include the word DELL (the “DELL Marks”), for many years for laptops, desktops, computer parts and accessories, computer service and support, and other computer-related products and services. For example, Dell offers technical and repair services for its laptops, desktops, and other products on its website at www.support.dell.com. Dell owns a number of trademark registrations for the DELL Marks, many of which are incontestable. See, e.g., U.S. Reg. Nos. 1,860,272, 2,236,785, 2,794,705, 2,806,769, 2,806,770, 2,808,852, 3,215,023, and Chinese Reg. Nos. 612102, 910585, 13547042, 1391614, 1391653, 1421704, 3178874, 3265882, 3265884, 3265886, 3689009, 4454284, and 4454285.
FACTUAL AND LEGAL GROUNDS
This Complaint is based on the following factual and legal grounds:
a. The disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s DELL Marks. Specifically, the domain names each incorporate the famous mark DELL in its entirety. Two of the domain names in dispute merely tack seemingly random numbers on to the end of the DELL mark (i.e., dell024.com and dell138.com), while the other two domain names add “dl” and “homewx.” These additions do not distinguish the domain names from the DELL mark and are unlikely to mitigate the likelihood that internet users will be confused by Respondent’s use of the DELL mark in its domain names. Moreover, the letter combination “dl” is a common abbreviation for “download,” a term likely to be associated with Dell and its goods and services. The presence of a generic top-level domain (“.com”) is irrelevant in a UDRP 4(a)(i) analysis.[i]
b. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain names.
i. Respondent has not used, nor made any demonstrable preparations to use, the domain names or a name corresponding to the domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Rather, the domain name dellhomewx.com displays no content while the remaining three domain names in dispute are being used for websites that attempt to deceive consumers into thinking that Respondent or Respondent’s business is Complainant or is at least affiliated or connected with, or authorized by, Complainant.
For instance, each of Respondent’s websites displays a version of Complainant’s logo at the top of each webpage, incorporating a canted ‘E’ and presenting the logo in a blue color that is indistinguishable from that typically used by Complainant.
Also, featured at the top of each of Respondent’s webpages is a reference to Respondent by the name “Dell Service Center.” Moreover, Respondent’s website displays pictures of Dell products and copies the white and blue color scheme of Complainant’s official www.dell.com website. Respondent uses its websites to promote computer support services that are in direct competition with services offered by Complainant, encouraging visitors to call phone numbers that are not associated with Complainant.
Given Respondent’s current use of dell024.com, dell138.com, and delldl.com Complainant presumes Respondent plans to use dellhomewx.com in a similar manner.
ii. Respondent is not an authorized service provider of Complainant’s computer repair services. In addition, Complainant has not licensed or otherwise permitted Respondent to use its DELL Marks, or any other mark owned by Complainant.
iii. Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain names. Respondent’s inclusion of DELL in the domain names is not a nominative fair use.[ii]
iv. Passive holding of a domain name, as Respondent is doing with dellhomewx.com, is evidence that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name.[iii]
c. Respondent registered and is using the domain names in bad faith.
i. The use of domain names that are confusingly similar to Complainant’s famous DELL Marks is evidence of bad faith.[iv] Further, it is clear that Respondent knew of Complainant’s famous DELL Marks and rights based on Respondent’s use of certain of the disputed domain names to host websites that copy Complainant’s logo, feature pictures of Complainant’s products, and offer services for Complainant’s products.
ii. Not only are the disputed domain names highly likely to cause confusion, Respondent’s bad faith is clearly demonstrated by the evidence set out in paragraph 7(b)(i), above, which shows that the domain names are being used for websites that attempt to deceive consumers into thinking that Respondent or Respondent’s business is, or is associated with, Complainant.[v]
iii. By using the disputed domain names for websites displaying the DELL Marks and images of Complainant’s products, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s websites by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s websites.[vi]
iv. Respondent’s use of confusingly similar domain names to promote services that compete with those of Complainant is further evidence of Respondent’s bad faith.[vii]
v. Respondent’s passive holding of the dellhomewx.com domain name is evidence of bad faith.[viii]
vi. The fact that Respondent has registered at least four domain names that contain the DELL Marks is also evidence of bad faith.[ix]
vii. Respondent has engaged in a pattern of bad faith registration and use of Complainants’ and others’ trademarks in domain names. This pattern is evidenced by the fact that Respondent appears to own multiple domain names incorporating well-known marks owned by Complainant and various third-parties (e.g., appleshwxz.com, applewxz.com, asuswxz.com, dllenovopc.com, hpwxz.com). Each of the domain names listed in this paragraph hosts a website that is used in a manner analogous to that described in Paragraph 7(b)(i) above.
viii. Respondent’s bad faith is also evidenced by the fact that Respondent has not used the domain names in connection with the bona fide offering of any goods or services; Respondent has made no bona fide noncommercial or fair use of the DELL Marks in sites accessible under the domain names; and Respondent’s domain names incorporate exactly the famous mark DELL. See 15 U.S.C. §1125(d)(1)(B)(i).
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Preliminary Issue: Multiple Respondents
In the instant proceedings, Complainant claims sub silentio the entities which control the domain names at issue are effectively controlled by the same person and/or entity, which is operating under several aliases. Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”) provides that a “complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder.” All four domain names in dispute are under common control because the WHOIS record for each domain name registration lists the same email address as the Registrant Email—690467768@qq.com. Although the information in the WHOIS record for <dell138.com> does not match that of the other domain names verbatim, it is very similar, generally differing only in spacing and capitalization. This constitutes sufficient evidence all of the domain names are under common control.
Language of the Proceedings
The Registration Agreement is written in Chinese, making the language of the proceedings in Chinese. Pursuant to Rule 11(a), the Panel determines the language requirement has been satisfied through the Chinese language Complaint and Commencement Notification, and, absent a Response, determines the remainder of the proceedings may be conducted in English.
(1) the domain names 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 names; and
(3) the domain names have been registered and are being used 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 Complainant prove the following elements to obtain an order cancelling or transferring a domain name:
(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 claims rights in the DELL mark through its registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g. Reg. No. 1,860,272, registered Oct. 25, 1994). Registration with a governmental trademark agency, such as the USPTO, is sufficient to prove Policy ¶4(a)(i) rights in a mark. See Humor Rainbow, Inc. v. James Lee, FA 1626154 (Forum Aug. 11, 2015) (stating, “There exists an overwhelming consensus amongst UDRP panels that USPTO registrations are sufficient in demonstrating a complainant’s rights under Policy ¶4(a)(i) and its vested interests in a mark. . . . Due to Complainant’s attached USPTO registration on the principal register at Exhibit 1, the Panel agrees that it has sufficiently demonstrated its rights per Policy ¶4(a)(i).”). Complainant has established rights in the DELL mark for the purposes of Policy ¶4(a)(i).
Complainant claims Respondent’s <dell024.com>, <dell138.com>, <delldl.com>, and <dellhomewx.com> domain names are identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark because they each contain the DELL mark in its entirety and add either numbers or generic terms/acronyms (such as “dl” suggesting downloads), along with the gTLD “.com.” Similar minor changes in a domain name have failed to sufficiently distinguish the mark for the purposes of Policy ¶4(a)(i). A TLD (whether a gTLD, sTLD or ccTLD) is disregarded under a Policy ¶4(a)(i) analysis because domain name syntax requires TLDs. See Microsoft Corporation v. Thong Tran Thanh, FA 1653187 (Forum Jan. 21, 2016) (determining that confusing similarity exist where [a disputed domain name] contains Complainant’s entire mark and differs only by the addition of a generic or descriptive phrase and top-level domain, the differences between the domain name and its contained trademark are insufficient to differentiate one from the other for the purposes of the Policy.); see also Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation v Domain Admin / PrivacyProtect.org / Denis Ferulev, FA 1652313 (Forum Jan. 19, 2016) (“Complainant notes that the domain name contains the recognized acronym for its FAMILY GUY mark, along with the number ‘24’ … the Panel finds that the <fg24.biz> domain name is confusingly similar to the FAMILY GUY mark under Policy ¶4(a)(i).”); see also 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 <dell024.com>, <dell138.com>, <delldl.com>, and <dellhomewx.com> domain names are confusingly similar to the DELL mark under Policy ¶4(a)(i).
The Panel finds Policy ¶4(a)(i) satisfied.
Complainant must first make a prima facie case Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶4(a)(ii). Then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it has rights or legitimate interests. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶4(a)(ii)); see also Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) (“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”).
Complainant claims Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <dell024.com>, <dell138.com>, <delldl.com>, and <dellhomewx.com> domain names. Absent information in the record to the contrary (and there is none in this case), the WHOIS information and common sense allow the Panel to decide Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names. 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). The WHOIS identifies “li de zhi c/o li de zhi / LiDezhi c/o Li dezhi” (which are all phonetically the same) as the registrant of the domain names. No evidence exists to show Respondent has ever been legitimately known by the DELL mark. 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). Respondent has never been legitimately affiliated with Complainant, has never been known by the domain names prior to their registration, and Complainant has not given Respondent permission to use Complainant’s mark in any manner. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names under Policy ¶4(c)(ii).
Complainant claims Respondent uses the <dell024.com>, <delldl.com>, and <dell138.com> domain names to pass off as Complainant and offer competing services. Using a confusingly similar domain name to pass off as a complainant and offer competing services does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See Upwork Global Inc. v. Shoaib Malik, FA 1654759 (Forum February 3, 2016) (finding that Complainant provides freelance talent services, and that Respondent competes with Complainant by promoting freelance talent services through the disputed domain’s resolving webpage, which is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor is it a legitimate noncommercial or fair use); see also Mortgage Research Center LLC v. Miranda, FA 993017 (Forum July 9, 2007) (“Because [the] respondent in this case is also attempting to pass itself off as [the] complainant, presumably for financial gain, the Panel finds the respondent is not using the <mortgageresearchcenter.org> domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶4(c)(iii).”). Three of those domain names with active websites contain photos of “Dell” computers, the DELL logo, and Chinese characters. Respondent attempts to pass itself off as Complainant by offering competing services, which does not which does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶4(c)(iii).
Complainant claims the <dellhomewx.com> domain name does not resolve to an active website. Failure to make active use of a confusingly similar domain name demonstrates a lack of a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See Bloomberg L.P. v. SC Media Servs. & Info. SRL, FA 296583 (Forum Sept. 2, 2004) (“Respondent is wholly appropriating Complainant’s mark and is not using the <bloomberg.ro> domain name in connection with an active website. The Panel finds that the [failure to make an active use] of a domain name that is identical to Complainant’s mark is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶4(c)(i) and it is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶4(c)(iii).”). While a domain name can be used for other purposes than hosting a website (such as an email server or an ecommerce back end), Respondent does not make any such claim. Respondent fails to use the <dellhomewx.com> domain name and has not acquires any rights and legitimate interests under Policy ¶¶4(c)(i) & (iii).
The Panel finds Policy ¶4(a)(ii) satisfied.
Complainant claims Respondent registered the disputed domain names in bad faith by acquiring multiple domain names. Policy ¶4(b)(ii) provides “[Respondent has] registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that [Respondent has] engaged in a pattern of such conduct;…” Complainant has not been prevented from reflecting its mark in a domain name because it owns <dell.com>. Respondent’s registration of multiple domain names incorporating third-party marks does not automatically constitute bad faith under Policy ¶4(b)(ii).
Complainant claims Respondent registered and uses the <dell024.com>, <delldl.com>, and <dell138.com> domain names in bad faith by creating a likelihood for confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the disputed domain name to commercially benefit by offering competing goods or services. Using a disputed domain name that trades upon the goodwill of a complainant for commercial gain constitutes bad faith under Policy ¶4(b)(iv). See Xylem Inc. and Xylem IP Holdings LLC v. YinSi BaoHu YiKaiQi, FA1504001612750 (Forum May 13, 2015) (“The Panel agrees that Respondent’s use of the website to display products similar to Complainant’s, imputes intent to attract Internet users for commercial gain, and finds bad faith per Policy ¶4(b)(iv).”). The three domain names contain photos of “Dell” computers, the DELL logo, and Chinese characters. Respondent attempted to commercially benefit off the goodwill of Complainant’s mark in bad faith under Policy ¶4(b)(iv).
Complainant claims Respondent inactively holds the <dellhomewx.com> domain name. Inactively holding a confusingly similar domain name constitutes bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶4(a)(iii). See VideoLink, Inc. v. Xantech Corporation, FA1503001608735 (Forum May 12, 2015) (“Failure to actively use a domain name is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶4(a)(iii).”). Respondent has not claimed to use the disputed domain name in any fashion. The Panel must conclude Respondent failed to use the domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶4(a)(iii).
Complainant claims Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the DELL mark at the time of registering the disputed domain names. Actual knowledge of a complainant's rights in a mark prior to registering a confusingly similar domain name constitutes bad faith under Policy ¶4(a)(iii). See Univision Comm'cns Inc. v. Norte, FA 1000079 (Forum Aug. 16, 2007) (rejecting the respondent's contention that it did not register the disputed domain name in bad faith since the panel found that the respondent had knowledge of the complainant's rights in the UNIVISION mark when registering the disputed domain name). Respondent clearly had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the DELL mark prior to registering the domain names given the use of the DELL mark and photos of Complainant’s products on several of the disputed domain names. That is hardly accidental. Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s mark, demonstrating bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶4(a)(iii).
The Panel finds Policy ¶4(a)(iii) satisfied.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered the <dell024.com>, <dell138.com>, <delldl.com>, and <dellhomewx.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Houston Putnam Lowry, Chartered Arbitrator, Panelist
Dated: Wednesday, July 11, 2018
[i] Trip Network Inc. v. Alviera, Case No. FA914943 (NAF Mar. 27, 2007) (concluding that the addition of a gTLD is irrelevant to a Policy ¶4(a)(i) analysis).
[ii] See, e.g., Alticor Inc. v. Linecom, Case No. FA1464456 (NAF Nov. 6, 2012) (authorized reseller did not have rights or legitimate interests in the domain name); Broan-Nutone, LLC v. Ready Set Sales, Case No. D2010-0920 (WIPO 2010) (unauthorized reseller of mark owner’s products did not have rights or legitimate interest in domain name, even with use of a disclaimer on the site); Houghton Mifflin Co. v. Weatherman, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2001-0211 (April 25, 2001) (transferring name where Respondent reseller prominently displayed the Complainant’s distinctive logo on its website).
[iii] See, e.g., L.F.P., Inc. v. B & J Props., FA 109697 (NAF May 30, 2002) (“A respondent cannot simply do nothing and effectively ‘sit on his rights’ for an extended period of time when the respondent might be capable of doing otherwise”); Am. Online, Inc. v. Kloszewski, FA204148 (NAF Dec. 4. 2003) (“Respondent’s passive holding of the <aolfact.com> domain name for over six months is evidence that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name”).
[iv] See e.g., Dell Inc. v. ASTDomains, Case No. D2007-1819 (WIPO 2007) (“Given the notoriety of the Complainant’s trademark, it is inconceivable to the Panel that the Respondent registered the domain name without prior knowledge of the Complainant and the Complainant’s mark,” finding bad faith and transferring dellvista.com).
[v] See, e.g., Dell Inc. v. Vijayan Anbalagan, Case No. FA 1531184 (NAF Dec. 30, 2013) (stating, “Respondent is attempting to pass itself off as Complainant,” transferring dellservicesupport.com).
[vi] Dell Inc. v. Pritam Singh c/o Pandaje Technical Services Pvt Ltd., FA1645279 (NAF Dec. 5, 2015) (holding “Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s website by creating a likelihood of confusion” under circumstances very similar to those in the instant case).
[vii] See, e.g., Homer TLC, Inc. v. Above.com Domain Privacy, Case No. FA 1579386 (NAF October 13, 2014) (finding that registration of a domain name that featured Complainant’s well-known mark “together with the use of the domain name to promote competing goods or services in a manner designed to exploit confusion with Complainant and its mark, is indicative of bad faith under paragraphs 4(b)(iii) and 4(b)(iv) of the Policy”).
[viii] See The South African Football Association (SAFA) v. Fairfield Tours (Pty) Ltd, Case No D2009-0998 (WIPO Sep. 11, 2009) (Stating that the proposition that “inaction on the part of a respondent and failure to use a domain name gives rise to a passive holding of the name and in turn is evidence of bad faith” is well supported by other panel decisions); State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Comp. v. Fred Sotelo, FA1008269 (NAF Jul. 17, 2007) (concluding that respondent’s passive holding of domain names which simply resolved to blank error pages permitted an inference of registration and use in bad faith); Caravan Club v. Mrgsale, FA95314 (NAF Aug. 30, 2000) (finding that respondent made no use of the domain name, and that “[p]assive holding of a domain name permits an inference of registration and use in bad faith.”).
[ix] j2 Global, Inc. dba j2 Global Communications, Inc. v. LCI / Omid Larijani, Case No. FA1509635 (NAF August 16, 2013) (“Respondent’s registration of [multiple domain] names constitutes a pattern of bad faith”); Schwab v. Stanley, Case No. FA95038 (NAF July 15, 2000) (“the registration of numerous domain names [incorporating Complainant’s marks] reveals bad faith,” finding three domain names sufficient).
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page