Charter Communications Holding Company, LLC v. Ahmed Tariq / Maestro Digital
Claim Number: FA1904001841037
Complainant is Charter Communications Holding Company, LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Madelon Lapidus of Holland & Hart LLP, Colorado, USA. Respondent is Ahmed Tariq / Maestro Digital (“Respondent”), Pakistan.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <charter-spectrumdeals.com>, 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.
Darryl C. Wilson, as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on April 29, 2019; the Forum received payment on April 29, 2019.
On April 30, 2019, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <charter-spectrumdeals.com> 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 ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On May 1, 2019, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of May 21, 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@charter-spectrumdeals.com. Also on May 1, 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.
Having received no response from Respondent, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On May 23, 2019, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Darryl C. Wilson 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, Charter Communications Holding Company, LLC, uses their mark CHARTER SPECTRUM in connection with telecommunication services. Complainant has rights in the CHARTER SPECTRUM mark based on registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g. Reg. No. 4,618,726, registered Oct. 7, 2014). Respondent’s <charter-spectrumdeals.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s CHARTER SPECTRUM mark, as it fully incorporates the mark, merely adding a hyphen, the generic term “deals,” and the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.”
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <charter-spectrumdeals.com> domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Complainant authorized Respondent to use the CHARTER SPECTRUM mark in any manner. Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name is not a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, Respondent is using the disputed domain name to pass off as Complainant.
Respondent registered and is using the <charter-spectrumdeals.com> domain name in bad faith. Respondent intentionally seeks to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s marks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s website. Respondent is using the disputed domain name to pass as Complainant and purports to offer Complainant’s services. Further, Respondent’s mimicry of Complainant’s website demonstrates actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the CHARTER SPECTRUM mark.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant is Charter Communications Holding Company, LLC (“Complainant”), of St. Louis, MO, USA. Complainant is the owner of numerous domestic and international registrations for the marks CHARTER, SPECTRUM, and CHARTER SPECTRUM, as well as assorted variations thereof, collectively comprising the family of CHATER SPECTRUM marks. Complainant has continuously used its marks since at least as early as 1994 in connection with its provision of cable television and related telecommunication services.
Respondent is Ahmed Tariq / Maestro Digital (“Respondent”), of Karachi, Pakistan. Respondent’s registrar’s address is listed as Phoenix, AZ, USA.
The Panel notes that the disputed domain name was registered on or about August 20, 2018.
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 set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at ¶ 4.3; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (“Because Complainant did not produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations [. . .] the Panel finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint”).
Complainant claims rights in the CHARTER SPECTRUM mark based upon registration of the mark with the USPTO (e.g. Reg. No. 4,618,726, registered Oct. 7, 2014). Registration of a mark with the USPTO is sufficient to establish rights in that mark. See DIRECTV, LLC v. The Pearline Group, FA 1818749 (Forum Dec. 30, 2018) (“Complainant’s ownership of a USPTO registration for DIRECTV demonstrate its rights in such mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”). The Panel here finds that Complainant’s registration of the CHARTER SPECTRUM mark with the USPTO is sufficient to establish rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant next argues Respondent’s <charter-spectrumdeals.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the CHARTER SPECTRUM mark, as it fully incorporates the mark, merely adding a hyphen, the generic term “deals,” and the gTLD “.com.” Generally, the addition of hyphens, generic terms, and/or a gTLD to a complainant’s mark is not sufficient to overcome a confusingly similar analysis per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Innomed Techs., Inc. v. DRP Servs., FA 221171 (Forum Feb. 18, 2004) (finding that hyphens and top-level domains are irrelevant for purposes of the Policy) ; see also MTD Products Inc. v J Randall Shank, FA 1783050 (Forum June 27, 2018) (“The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark as it wholly incorporates the CUB CADET mark before appending the generic terms ‘genuine’ and ‘parts’ as well as the ‘.com’ gTLD.”). Here, Respondent added a hyphen, the generic term “deals,” and the gTLD “.com” to Complainant’s mark when registering the disputed domain name. The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s CHARTER SPECTRUM mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Respondent raises no contentions with regards to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
The Complainant has proven this element.
The Panel notes that 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”). The Panel here finds that Complainant has set forth the requisite prima facie case.
Complainant argues that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <charter-spectrumdeals.com> domain name, as Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Complainant authorized Respondent to use the CHARTER SPECTRUM mark in any way. Where a response is lacking, WHOIS information can support a finding that the respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. See Chevron Intellectual Property LLC v. Fred Wallace, FA1506001626022 (Forum July 27, 2015) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <chevron-europe.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), as the WHOIS information named “Fred Wallace” as registrant of the disputed domain name). Additionally, lack of authorization from complainant to use its mark may be evidence that respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Emerson Electric Co. v. golden humble / golden globals, FA 1787128 (Forum June 11, 2018) (“lack of evidence in the record to indicate a respondent is authorized to use [the] complainant’s mark may support a finding that [the] respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)”). The WHOIS information of record identifies the owner of the disputed domain name as “Ahmed Tariq / Maestro Digital” and no information on record indicates Respondent was authorized to register a domain name with Complainant’s mark. The Panel here finds that under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) Respondent has not been commonly known by the <charter-spectrumdeals.com> domain name.
Complainant further argues Respondent’s lack of rights and legitimate interests in the <charter-spectrumdeals.com> domain name is demonstrated by its failure to use the name to make a bona fide offering of goods and services or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Complainant instead contends that the disputed domain name resolves to a website that is being used to pass off as Complainant. Use of a domain name to pass off as a complainant is not indicative of rights or legitimate interests per Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See Insomniac Holdings, LLC v. Mark Daniels, FA 1735969 (Forum July 15, 2017) (refusing to find rights and legitimate interests in a domain name on the part of a respondent when the disputed domain name “resolves to a website that Respondent has designed to mimic Complainant’s own in an attempt to pass itself off as Complainant”). Here, Complainant provides a screenshot of the website associated with the disputed domain name that mimics Complainant’s own website. The Panel here finds that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <charter-spectrumdeals.com> domain name per Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Respondent raises no contentions with regards to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
The Complainant has proven this element.
Complainant argues that Respondent’s bad faith is indicated by its use of the <charter-spectrumdeals.com> domain name to pass off as Complainant by offering Complainant’s services. Generally, use of a disputed domain name to pass off as a Complainant in order to offer similar services may demonstrate bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Bittrex, Inc. v. Wuxi Yilian LLC, FA 1760517 (Forum Dec. 27, 2017) (finding bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where “Respondent registered and uses the <lbittrex.com> domain name in bad faith by directing Internet users to a website that mimics Complainant’s own website in order to confuse users into believing that Respondent is Complainant, or is otherwise affiliated or associated with Complainant.”); see also Fossil Inc. v. NAS, FA 92525 (Forum Feb. 23, 2000) (finding that the respondent acted in bad faith by registering the <fossilwatch.com> domain name and using it to sell various watch brands where the respondent was not authorized to sell the complainant’s goods). Here, Complainant has provided screenshots of the website associated with the disputed domain name as well as screenshots of Complainant’s own website, which shows Respondent’s attempt to mimic Complainant’s website and offers to sell Complainant’s services. The Panel here finds that Respondent is using the disputed domain name in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
Complainant further asserts Respondent’s bad faith is demonstrated by its actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the CHARTER SPECTRUM mark prior to registration of the <charter-spectrumdeals.com> domain name. Generally, a respondent’s actual knowledge of a complainant’s rights in a mark prior to registering a disputed domain name may demonstrate bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Orbitz Worldwide, LLC v. Domain Librarian, FA 1535826 (Forum Feb. 6, 2014) (“The Panel notes that although the UDRP does not recognize ‘constructive notice’ as sufficient grounds for finding Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) bad faith, the Panel here finds actual knowledge through the name used for the domain and the use made of it.”); see also Spectrum Brands, Inc. v. Guo Li Bo, FA 1760233 (Forum Jan. 5, 2018) (“[T]he fact Respondent registered a domain name that looked identical to the SPECTRUM BRANDS mark and used that as an email address to pass itself off as Complainant shows that Respondent knew of Complainant and its trademark rights at the time of registration.”). Here, Complainant provides screenshots of the website associated with the disputed domain name as well as screenshots of Complainant’s own website, which shows Respondent’s attempt to mimic Complainant’s website and offers to sell Complainant’s services. The Panel here finds that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Respondent raises no contentions with regards to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
The Complainant has proven this element.
As the Complainant has established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that Complainant’s requested relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <charter-spectrumdeals.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Darryl C. Wilson, Panelist
Dated: June 6, 2019
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page