Area I, Inc. v. sandhya singh
Claim Number: FA1908001855526
Complainant is Area I, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Bekiares Eliezer LLP, Georgia, USA. Respondent is sandhya singh (“Respondent”), represented by Howard Neu of Law Office of Howard Neu, P.A., Florida, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <areai.com>, registered with Wild West Domains, 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.
Eugene I. Low as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on August 2, 2019; the Forum received payment on August 2, 2019.
On August 5, 2019, Wild West Domains, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <areai.com> domain name is registered with Wild West Domains, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Wild West Domains, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Wild West Domains, 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 August 6, 2019, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 26, 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@areai.com. Also on August 6, 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 August 26, 2019.
On August 28, 2019, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Eugene I. Low 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
Complainant is a U.S. defense contractor that engages in the production and delivery of sensitive technology, including military drones and aircraft. Complainant has rights in the AREA-I and AREA I marks through its trademark registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., AREA-I Reg. No. 5,670,360, registered Feb. 5, 2019; AREA I – Reg. No. 5,670,361, registered Feb. 5, 2019). Complainant also has common law rights in the AREA-I/AREA I mark as early as January 2009. Respondent’s <areai.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s AREA-I/AREA I mark as it incorporates the mark in its entirety, absent the hyphen, along with a “.com” generic top-level domain.
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <areai.com> domain name. Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant’s AREA-I/AREA I mark nor commonly known by the disputed domain name. Additionally, Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, Respondent listed the disputed domain name for sale for $39,888.000. Furthermore, Respondent’s disputed domain name once resolved to an unintelligible holding page. Finally, Respondent currently uses the disputed domain name to feature content related to a humanitarian cause called “Adoption of Rural Education for All Indians / AREA of India / ARE Artificial Intelligence” as a means to legitimize what is clearly cybersquatting.
Respondent registered and uses the <areai.com> domain name in bad faith. Respondent attempted to sell the disputed domain name for $39,888.00, far more than what it paid for at auction ($293.00). Additionally, Respondent is a serial cyber squatter, having registered thousands of domain names, many with third party marks, and failing to develop them. Respondent also failed to actively use the disputed domain name. Finally, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the AREA-I/AREA I mark.
B. Respondent
Respondent is a native born Indian and a Canadian citizen, who is a domain investor in the business of registering and using domain names for email addresses and generic names. Respondent currently owns over 5,000 domain names as part of its domain business. Respondent purchased the <areai.com> domain name at auction for the sum of $293, where Respondent out-bid Complainant. nearly one year before Complainant registered its marks. Complainant’s common law rights argument fails as it is a citizen of Canada and had never heard of Complainant’s AREA-I/AREA I mark prior to buying the domain name. Complainant’s marks are also not famous enough to have acquired secondary meaning.
Respondent has rights and legitimate interests in the <areai.com> domain name. Respondent’s domain name is an acronym for its working website, “Adoption of Rural Education of All Indians (‘AREAI’).” Respondent legitimately parked the disputed domain name as it intends to develop and use the domain name for Indian education. Furthermore, Respondent is entitled to sell the domain name for whatever price Respondent values it, absent targeting of Complainant’s mark.
Respondent did not register or use the <areai.com> domain name in bad faith. Respondent purchased the domain name at auction and was later offered $500 by Complainant for the domain name. Respondent also did not register or use the domain name in an attempt to target or disrupt Complainant’s business. Finally, Respondent did not have actual knowledge of Complainant’s AREA-I/AREA I mark prior to purchasing the 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.
The Panel finds that the first element is established.
Complainant claims rights in the AREA-I/AREA I mark based upon registration of the mark with the USPTO (e.g., AREA-I Reg. No. 5,670,360, registered Feb. 5, 2019; AREA I – Reg. No. 5,670,361, registered Feb. 5, 2019). Complainant further argues to have common law rights in the AREA-I/AREA I mark as early as January 2009 (which is also the date of incorporation of Complainant). Complainant has provided a variety of evidence showing the AREA-I/AREA I mark used in connection with its business as early as 2009. Such evidence includes its corporation documents, historical screenshots of its website, list of U.S. government grants, and media distinction. The Panelist is satisfied that Complainant has the requisite rights in the AREA-I/AREA I mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
The Panel further considers that Respondent’s <areai.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the AREA-I/AREA I mark, as the name incorporates the mark in its entirety, absent a hyphen, along with a “.com” gTLD. It is well established that such minor differences are not sufficient to distinguish a domain name in a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis.
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.
The Panel accepts that Complainant has established such a prima facie case, based on the following submissions:
- Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name.
- Nor has Complainant authorized Respondent to use the AREA-I/AREA I mark in any way.
- Respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interests in the <areai.com> domain name is demonstrated by its failure to use the name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Complainant contends the disputed domain name was previously put up for sale and currently resolves to a website that features deceitful content allegedly related to a humanitarian cause called “Adoption of Rural Education for All Indians / AREA of India”.
Respondent claims to use the domain name as part of its business that aims to provide education for those in India under the acronym, “Adoption of Rural Education of All Indians (‘AREAI’).” For the reasons discussed below regarding Policy Paragraph 4(a)(iii), the Panel finds Respondent's explanations inconsistent and unpersuasive. Respondent has also failed to show demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain name for either a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.
Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Complainant contends Respondent’s only purpose in registering the <areai.com> domain name was to gain commercially from the sale of the same. Complainant contends that in light of the fame and notoriety of Complainant's AREA-I/AREA I mark, it is inconceivable that Respondent could have purchased via auction the <areai.com> domain name without knowledge of Complainant's rights in the mark. Complainant also asserts that Respondent fails to put the <areai.com> domain name into bona fide use is evidence of its bad faith. Complainant further contends Respondent’s registration of the <areai.com> domain name is part of a pattern of bad faith registration and use of domain names.
The Panel finds Respondent's response inconsistent and unpersuasive. First, Respondent admits that he is a domain investor holding over 5,000 domain names. Respondent then argues that after acquiring the disputed domain name, he has been in the process of developing the domain into a working web site, and that "AREAI" is a contraction of "Adoption of Rural Education for All Indians". However, the Panel finds that this Respondent's claim of developing the domain into a working website does not sit comfortably with the following points:
i. the disputed domain name was, at some point in time, put up for sale for US$39,888;
ii. the domain was purchased on February 9, 2018, and the website apparently did not post any contents until after Complainant sent a demand letter in December 2018, but still after over 18 months since February 2018 the website remains under construction with rudimentary contents; Respondent has not shown any evidence to demonstrate its process of developing the domain into a working website; and
iii. the website <areai.com> also advertised contents which do not seem to match the alleged theme "Adoption of Rural Education for All Indians", e.g. the website advertises a logo [IMAGE REMOVED] and statements such as "This site is dedicated to provide educational and learning videos related to artificial intelligency in the field of education, health and skills development." and "Find out more about different AREA of INDIA" – which seem to suggest that the domain is used as an acronym/contraction of "are", "artificial intelligence" or "area", neither of which has any immediate association with the alleged theme "Adoption of Rural Education for All Indians".
In light of the totality of the evidence, the Panel finds that Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith.
Reverse Domain Name Hijacking
Since the Panel finds that Complainant has established all three elements, Respondent's plea for Reverse Domain Name Hijacking is denied.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <areai.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Eugene I. Low, Panelist
Dated: September 3, 2019
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page