United States Steel Corporation v. Greg Town
Claim Number: FA1906001847396
Complainant is United States Steel Corporation (“Complainant”), represented by Michael D. Lazzara, Pittsburgh, USA. Respondent is Greg Town (“Respondent”), Louisiana, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <ussteelmedicare.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, 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.
Kenneth L. Port as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on June 11, 2019; the Forum received payment on June 11, 2019.
On June 12, 2019, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <ussteelmedicare.com> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, 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 June 13, 2019, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 3, 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@ussteelmedicare.com. Also on June 13, 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 July 8, 2019, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Kenneth L. Port 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, United States Steel Corporation, uses their mark U.S. STEEL in connection with steel products. Complainant has rights in the U.S. STEEL mark through its registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g. Reg. No. 2,469,301, registered July 17, 2001). See Compl. Ex. 4. Respondent’s <ussteelmedicare.com> domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark as it consists of a substantial portion of the mark and adds the generic or descriptive term “medicare” and the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <ussteelmedicare.com> domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor is Respondent a licensee or otherwise authorized to use Complainant’s 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 disputed domain name resolves to a parked webpage hosting links for goods or services competitive to Complainant’s business.
Respondent registered and uses the <ussteelmedicare.com> domain name in bad faith. Respondent uses the confusingly similar disputed domain name to divert Internet users to Respondent’s site and likely profit from the pay-per-click nature of the website. Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the U.S. STEEL mark as demonstrated by Respondent’s attempt to trade off Complainant’s goodwill and reputation.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. Respondent registered the disputed domain name on November 13, 2018.
The Panel finds that the dispute domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s valid and subsisting trademark; that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in or to the dispute domain name; and that Respondent has engaged in bad faith use and registration of the dispute 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 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”).
The Panel finds that the dispute domain name, <ussteelmedicare.com>, is confusingly similar to Complainant’s valid and subsisting trademark, US STEEL. Complainant has adequately plead its rights and interests in and to this trademark. Respondent arrives at the dispute domain name by merely deleting spaces and adding the generic word “medicare” and the g TLD “.com” to an exact reproduction of Complainant’s trademark. This is insufficient to distinguish the dispute domain name from Complainant’s trademark.
As such, the Panel finds that the dispute domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark.
The Panel further finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in or to the dispute domain name. Respondent has no right, permission or license to register the disputed domain name. Respondent is no commonly known by the dispute domain name. Additionally, 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 disputed domain name resolves to a parked webpage hosting links for goods or services competitive to Complainant’s business.
As such, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in or to the dispute domain name.
The Panel also finds that Respondent has engaged in bad faith use and registration of the dispute domain name. Respondent apparently registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith as Respondent uses the confusingly similar disputed domain name to divert Internet users to Respondent’s site and likely profits from the pay-per-click nature of the website. Using a disputed domain name to host pay-per-click links can support a finding of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Danbyg Ejendomme A/S v. lb Hansen / guerciotti, FA1504001613867 (Forum June 2, 2015) (finding that the respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the disputed domain name resolved to a website that offered both competing hyperlinks and hyperlinks unrelated to the complainant’s business). Complainant provides a screenshot of the resolving webpage of the disputed domain name, which features a parked webpage hosting hyperlinks. See Compl. Ex. 8. The Panel therefore finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
Finally, given the fame of Complainant’s mark and Respondent’s attempts to tradeoff of that good will, the Panel finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s prior rights in and to its trademark, US STEEL.
As such, the Panel finds that Respondent has engaged in bad faith use and registration of the disputed domain name.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the <ussteelmedicare.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Kenneth L. Port, Panelist
Dated: July 9, 2019
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page