Virgin Enterprises Limited v. Amira Soliman / Hucknall
Claim Number: FA1810001811220
Complainant is Virgin Enterprises Limited (“Complainant”), represented by Chloe Perea Paole of Borges Salmon LLP, United Kingdom. Respondent is Amira Soliman / Hucknall (“Respondent”), USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <virginegalactic.us>, 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.
Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on October 11, 2018; the Forum received payment on October 11, 2018.
On October 13, 2018, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <virginegalactic.us> 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 the U.S. Department of Commerce’s usTLD Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On October 22, 2018, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of November 13, 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@virginegalactic.us. Also on October 22, 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 November 15, 2018, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Paul M. DeCicco 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 to the usTLD Dispute Resolution Policy (“Rules”). Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the usTLD Policy, usTLD 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 contends as follows:
Complainant, Virgin Enterprises Limited, is a leading branded venture capital organization. Complainant uses the VIRGIN GALACTIC mark to develop commercial spacecraft and aims to be the world’s first commercial space line.
Complainant has rights in the VIRGIN GALACTIC mark based upon its registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”).
Respondent’s <virginegalactic.us> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark because Respondent incorporates the VIRGIN GALACTIC mark in its entirety in the domain name, adds a letter “e,” and adds the country code top-level domain (“ccTLD”) “.us.”
Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <virginegalactic.us> domain name because Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and is not authorized or permitted to use Complainant’s mark in any fashion. Additionally, Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, Respondent uses the disputed domain name to send fraudulent emails.
Respondent registered and uses the <virginegalactic.us> domain name in bad faith. Respondent uses the disputed domain name to pass off as Complainant in furtherance of a fraudulent scheme. Further, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the VIRGIN GALACTIC mark prior to registering the disputed domain name.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant has rights in the VIRGIN GALACTIC mark through the registration of such mark with the USPTO and otherwise.
Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and had not been authorized to use Complainant’s trademark in any capacity.
Respondent registered the at‑issue domain name after Complainant acquired rights in the VIRGIN GALACTIC trademark.
Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to host email used to pass itself off as Complainant in furtherance of a phishing scheme.
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 or is being used in bad faith.
Given the similarity between the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“UDRP”) and the usTLD Policy, the Panel will draw upon UDRP precedent as applicable in rendering its decision.
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.”).
The at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.
Complainant’s registration of its VIRGIN GALACTIC mark with the USPTO constitutes conclusive evidence of Complainant’s rights in such mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Home Depot Product Authority, LLC v. Samy Yosef / Express Transporting, FA 1738124 (Forum July 28, 2017) (finding that registration with the USPTO was sufficient to establish the complainant’s rights in the HOME DEPOT mark).
Respondent’s <virginegalactic.us> domain name contains Complainant’s VIRGIN GALACTIC trademark, less its domain name impermissible space, and with an “e” added after the mark’s VIRGIN term. To complete the domain name Respondent’s misspelling of VIRGIN GALACTIC is followed by the country code top-level domain name “.us.” The slight differences between Complainant’s trademark and the <virginegalactic.us> domain name fail to distinguish the domain name from Complainant’s mark for the purpose of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). The Panel thus concludes that Respondent’s <virginegalactic.us> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s VIRGIN GALACTIC trademark. See OpenTable, Inc. v. Above.com Domain Privacy, FA 1626187 (Forum Aug. 10, 2015) (“Respondent’s <oipentable.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the OPENTABLE mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) because the disputed domain merely adds the letter ‘i’ . . . ”); see also, Laboratoires M&L v. Nitish Ghuse, FA 1782090 (Forum May 18, 2018) (holding that the ccTLD “.us” did not differentiate the disputed domain name from the complainant’s mark).
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. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006). Since Respondent failed to respond, Complainant’s prima facie showing acts conclusively.
Respondent lacks both rights and legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant’s trademark in any capacity and, as discussed below, there are no Policy ¶4(c) circumstances from which the Panel might find that Respondent has rights or interests in respect of the at‑issue domain name.
WHOIS information for the at-issue domain name identifies the domain name’s registrant as “Amira Soliman / Hucknall” and the record before the Panel contains no evidence that otherwise tends to prove that Respondent is commonly known by the <virginegalactic.us> domain name. The Panel therefore concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by the <virginegalactic.us> domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Coppertown Drive-Thru Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089 (Forum July 17, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <coppertown.com> domain name where there was no evidence in the record, including the WHOIS information, suggesting that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name).
Additionally, Respondent uses the <virginegalactic.us> domain name to pass itself off as Complainant. Respondent, posing as an employee of the VIRGIN GALACTIC business entity by using email from the confusingly similar at-issue domain name, attempted to trick a third party merchant into believing Complainant desired to purchase certain products from the merchant, when it did not. Using the name of one of Complainant’s employees @virginegalactic.us, Respondent emailed the third party merchant a bogus purchase order for 100 Apple® AirPods. The purchase order had net 30 day terms and specified that the merchandise be shipped to a P.O. Box chosen by Respondent. Respondent certainly had no intention of ever funding the purchase order. Using the domain name in this manner is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4 (c)(ii) [UDRP Policy ¶ 4(c)(i)], nor a non-commercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iv) [UDRP Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)]. See DaVita Inc. v. Cynthia Rochelo, FA 1738034 (Forum July 20, 2017) (”Passing off in furtherance of a phishing scheme is not considered a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use.”); see also, Cubist Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Gregory Stea, FA1403001550388 (Forum May 5, 2014) (“Respondent is using the domain name in emails to various IT hardware suppliers in an attempt to impersonate Complainant and defraud its customers. The domain name also resolved to a website similar to Complainant's website. The Panel found that such actions precluded a bona fide offer or fair use.”).
Given the forgoing, Complainant satisfies its initial burden and conclusively demonstrates Respondent’s lack of rights and lack of interests in respect of the at-issue domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
The at-issue domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. As discussed below, Policy ¶ 4(b) bad faith circumstances are present and there is additional non-Policy ¶ 4(b) evidence from which the Panel may independently conclude that Respondent acted in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
First and as elaborated above regarding rights and legitimate interests, Respondent uses email originating from <virginegalactic.us> in furtherance of a phishing scheme. Respondent’s use of the <virginegalactic.us> domain name in such manner demonstrates bad faith under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv). See Abbvie, Inc. v. James Bulow, FA 1701075 (Forum Nov. 30, 2016) (“Respondent uses the <abbuie.com> domain name to impersonate Complainant’s CEO. Such use is undeniably disruptive to Complainant’s business and demonstrates bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii), and/or Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)”); see also Qatalyst Partners LP v. Devimore, FA 1393436 (Forum July 13, 2011) (finding that using the disputed domain name as an e-mail address to pass itself off as the complainant in a phishing scheme is evidence of bad faith registration and use per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)).
Furthermore, Respondent’s intentional misspelling of Complainant’s trademark in the at-issue domain name shows that Respondent is engaged in typosquatting. Typosquatting is a practice whereby a domain name registrant deliberately introduces typographical errors or misspellings into a trademark and then uses the resulting string in a domain name hoping that internet users will either: 1) inadvertently type the malformed string when searching for products or services related to the domain name’s target trademark; and/or 2) in viewing the domain name will confuse the domain name with its target trademark; as was Respondent’s desire in the instant case. Here, in creating the at-issue domain name Respondent misspells Complainant’s VIRGIN GALACTIC trademark by inserting an “e” into the mark. Typosquatting, in itself, has been found to indicate bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Computerized Sec. Sys., Inc. v. Hu, FA 157321 (Forum June 23, 2003) (finding that the respondent engaged in typosquatting, which is evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)).
Finally, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the VIRGIN GALACTIC mark when it registered <virginegalactic.us>. Respondent’s actual knowledge is evident from the notoriety of Complainant’s trademark and from Respondent’s use of the <virginegalactic.us> domain name to pass itself off as Complainant as discussed above. Registering and using a confusingly similar domain name with knowledge of Complainant’s rights in such domain name shows bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶4(a)(iii). See Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name); see also, 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).
Having established all three elements required under the usTLD Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <virginegalactic.us> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist
Dated: November 18, 2018
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page