Dell Inc. v. Zhichao Yang
Claim Number: FA1809001806330
Complainant is Dell Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by S. Erik Combs, Texas, USA. Respondent is Zhichao Yang (“Respondent”), China.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <securewirks.com>, registered with NameSilo, LLC.
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.
Hon. Karl v. Fink (Ret.) as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on September 17, 2018; the Forum received payment on September 17, 2018.
On September 18, 2018, NameSilo, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <securewirks.com> domain name is registered with NameSilo, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameSilo, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameSilo, LLC 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 18, 2018, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of October 9, 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@securewirks.com. Also on September 18, 2018, 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 October 10, 2018, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Hon. Karl V. Fink (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 is a world leader in computers, computer accessories, and other computer-related products and services. Complainant has rights in the SECUREWORKS mark through its registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g. Reg. No. 2,616,942, registered Sep. 10, 2002). Respondent’s <securewirks.com> domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark as it merely replaces the letter “O” with the letter “I” and tacks on the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <securewirks.com> domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Complainant authorized, licensed, or otherwise permitted Respondent to use the mark. Respondent also does not use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, the domain name is currently used as a parking page, displaying links for goods and services overlapping or related to those offered by Complainant under the SECUREWORKS mark.
Respondent registered and uses the <securewirks.com> domain name in bad faith. Respondent intentionally attempts to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s website where it offers competing hyperlinks. Further, it is clear that Respondent knew of Complainant’s famous SECUREWORKS mark based on Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to host a competing pay-per-click website and Respondent’s registration of a typosquatted version of Complainant’s mark.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
For the reasons set forth below, the Panel finds Complainant is entitled to the requested relief of transfer of the <securewirks.com> domain name.
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 claims rights in the SECUREWORKS mark through its registration of the mark with the USPTO (e.g. Reg. No. 2,616,942, registered Sep. 10, 2002). Registration of a mark with the USPTO sufficiently confers a complainant’s rights in a mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). 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).”). The Panel finds that Complainant has established rights in the SECUREWORKS mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant next argues that Respondent’s <securewirks.com> domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark as it merely replaces the letter “O” with the letter “I” and tacks on the “.com” gTLD. Similar changes in a registered mark have failed to sufficiently distinguish a domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Royal Bank of Scotland Grp. plc et al. v. Demand Domains, FA 714952 (Forum Aug. 2, 2006) (“The Panel finds that merely by misspelling Complainants’ mark, Respondent has not sufficiently differentiated the <privelage.com> domain name from the PRIVILEGE mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”); see also Dell Inc. v. Protection of Private Person / Privacy Protection, FA 1681432 (Forum Aug. 1, 2016) (“A TLD (whether a gTLD, sTLD or ccTLD) is disregarded under a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis because domain name syntax requires TLDs.”). The Panel finds that the <securewirks.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the SECUREWORKS mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant has proved this element.
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), then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have 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 contends that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <securewirks.com> domain name. Where a response is lacking, relevant information includes the WHOIS information and any other assertions by a complainant regarding the nature of its relationship with a respondent. 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 “Zhichao Yang” as the registrant. Complainant asserts that no evidence exists to show that Respondent has ever been legitimately known by the SECUREWORKS mark. Panels may use these assertions as evidence of lacking rights or legitimate interests. 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). Complainant alleges that Respondent has never been legitimately affiliated with Complainant, has never been known by the domain name prior to its registration, and Complainant has not given Respondent permission to use the mark in any manner. The Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the <securewirks.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
Complainant next argues that the domain name is currently used as a parking page, displaying links for goods and services overlapping or related to those offered by Complainant under the SECUREWORKS mark. Using a webpage to host a competing pay-per-click webpage can evince a failure to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See Ashley Furniture Industries, Inc. v. domain admin / private registrations aktien gesellschaft, FA1506001626253 (Forum July 29, 2015) (“Respondent is using the disputed domain name to resolve to a web page containing advertising links to products that compete with those of Complainant. The Panel finds that this does not constitute a bona fide offering or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.”). Complainant provides a screenshot of the resolving webpage for the disputed domain name, which displays links such as “Information Security Solutions” and “Theft Protection.” The Panel finds hat Respondent uses the domain name to offer competing hyperlinks and that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).
Complainant has proved this element.
Complainant argues that Respondent registered and uses the <securewirks.com> domain name 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 links to competing goods or services. Using a disputed domain name that trades upon the goodwill of a complainant for commercial gain can evince bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See American Council on Education and GED Testing Service LLC v. Anthony Williams, FA1760954 (Forum Jan. 8, 2018) (“Respondent’s hosting of links to Complainant’s competitors demonstrates bad faith registration and use of the <geddiploma.org> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)”). Complainant provides a screenshot of the resolving webpage for the disputed domain name, which displays links such as “Information Security Solutions” and “Theft Protection.” The Panel finds that Respondent attempts to commercially benefit off Complainant’s mark in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
Complainant claims that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the SECUREWORKS mark at the time of registering the <securewirks.com> domain name. Actual knowledge of a complainant's rights in a mark prior to registering a confusingly similar domain name can evince 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). Complainant contends that it is clear that Respondent knew of Complainant’s famous SECUREWORKS mark based on Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to host a competing pay-per-click website and Respondent’s registration of a typosquatted version of Complainant’s mark. The Panel finds that Respondent did have actual knowledge of Complainant’s mark and registered and uses the domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Complainant has proved this element.
DECISION
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 <securewirks.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Hon. Karl V. Fink (Ret.) Panelist
Dated: October 11, 2018
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page