CommScope, Inc. of North Carolina v. tomoyuki arima
Claim Number: FA1904001840171
Complainant is CommScope, Inc. of North Carolina (“Complainant”), represented by William Schultz of Merchant & Gould, P.C., Minnesota, USA. Respondent is tomoyuki arima (“Respondent”), Japan.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <comiscope.com>, registered with GMO Internet, Inc. d/b/a Onamae.com.
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.
Dennis A. Foster as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on April 23, 2019; the Forum received payment on April 23, 2019.
On April 23, 2019, GMO Internet, Inc. d/b/a Onamae.com confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <comiscope.com> domain name is registered with GMO Internet, Inc. d/b/a Onamae.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GMO Internet, Inc. d/b/a Onamae.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the GMO Internet, Inc. d/b/a Onamae.com 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 April 25, 2019, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of May 15, 2019 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@comiscope.com. Also on April 25, 2019, 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.
A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on April 25, 2019.
On April 29, 2019, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Dennis A. Foster 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.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
- With origins dating back to 1937, Complainant markets a variety of communications products and services. Since at least 1969, it has used the COMMSCOPE trademark, registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g. Reg. No. 1,865,198, registered Nov. 29, 1994), in connection with the provision of those products and services.
- The disputed domain name, <comiscope.com>, is confusingly similar to Complainant's COMMSCOPE mark. The name contains the gTLD ".com," which is inconsequential in the comparison. Moreover, the substitution of the letter "i," for the letter "m," in the principal part of the disputed domain name is insufficient to create a meaningful distinction between the disputed domain name and the mark.
- Respondent has no rights or interests in the disputed domain name. Complainant has granted no permission or license for Respondent to use Complainant's mark in any manner. As the website associated with the disputed domain name has no content, that name is not being used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. There is no evidence that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. Finally, the name is not being used in a legitimate noncommercial or fair use manner.
- The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's trademark rights. Moreover, Respondent's non-use of the name is consistent with bad faith registration and use. Also, the common form of typo-squatting exhibited in this case, i.e., misspelling of an established trademark by the substitution of one letter for another, is further evidence of bad faith.
B. Respondent
- Respondent does not file any contentions against Complainant's claims and will accede to a transfer of all rights in the disputed domain name.
Preliminary Issue: Language of Proceeding
Pursuant to UDRP Rule 11(a), the Panel finds that persuasive evidence has been adduced by Complainant to show that the Respondent is conversant and proficient in the English language. After considering the circumstances of the present case, the Panel has decided that the proceeding should be in English.
Respondent has stipulated that the disputed domain name may be transferred to Complainant.
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, the 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.
Both of the parties in this case have requested that the disputed domain name be transferred to Complainant. As those requests are identical, the Panel may choose to grant this common interest without rendering findings of fact with respect to compliance with the Policy. See Mead Johnson & Co., LLC v. Nasir, FA 1460354 (Forum Sept. 19, 2012).
Accordingly, the Panel concludes that it need not consider the elements otherwise required for resolution under Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. See Mead Johnson & Co., LLC v. Nasir, supra; see also Disney Enters., Inc. v. Morales, FA 475191 (Forum June 24, 2005) (“[U]nder such circumstances, where Respondent has agreed to comply with Complainant’s request, the Panel felt it to be expedient and judicial to forego the traditional UDRP analysis and order the transfer of the domain names.”).
Respondent has stipulated that the disputed domain name be transferred to Complainant, and therefore the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <comiscope.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Dennis A. Foster, Panelist
Dated: May 9, 2019
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page