DECISION

 

Micro Electronics, Inc. v. Rohit Saluja

Claim Number: FA1909001861308

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Micro Electronics, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by David A. Einhorn of Scarinci Hollenbeck LLC, New York, USA.  Respondent is Rohit Saluja (“Respondent”), India.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <microcenter.space>, registered with NameCheap, Inc.

 

PANEL

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.

 

Charles A. Kuechenmeister

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on September 9, 2019; the Forum received payment on September 9, 2019.

 

On September 10, 2019, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <microcenter.space> domain name (the 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 September 12, 2019, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint setting a deadline of October 2, 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@microcenter.space.  Also on September 12, 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 October 4, 2019, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Charles A. Kuechenmeister 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.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the Domain Name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant is a nation-wide company in the business of selling computers, electronic hardware, software and related services.  Complainant has rights in the MICRO CENTER mark through its trademark registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”), including Reg. No. 1,552,264 registered Aug. 15, 1989.  Respondent’s <microcenter.space> Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s MICRO CENTER mark as it fully incorporates the mark, merely adding the “.space” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).

 

Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name.  Respondent is not permitted or otherwise authorized to use Complainant’s MICRO CENTER mark and is not commonly known by the Domain Name.  Additionally, Respondent fails to use the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use because it resolves to a web site featuring an Index with certain item links, which when clicked on resolve to blank error pages.

 

Respondent registered and uses the Domain Name in bad faith.  Respondent has appropriated Complainant’s MICRO CENTER mark in an effort to create confusion.  The Domain Name resolves to an Index page that further resolves to inactive webpages.  Respondent also registered the Domain Name with a privacy service and with little to no contact information.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent did not submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

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 Complainant to prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order cancelling or transferring the Domain Name:

 

(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, pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules the Panel will decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations 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.  Nevertheless, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments.  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”), WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”) at ¶ 4.3 (“In cases involving wholly unsupported and conclusory allegations advanced by the complainant, . . . panels may find that—despite a respondent’s default—a complainant has failed to prove its case.”).

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

The MICRO CENTER mark was first registered to Complainant with the USPTO (Reg. No. 1,552,264) on August 15, 1989.  Complaint Annex Exhibit E.  A complainant’s registration of a mark with the USPTO is sufficient to establish its rights in that mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).  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 <microcenter.space> Domain Name is confusingly similar to the MICRO CENTER mark, as it incorporates the mark verbatim, merely omitting the space between the two words and adding the “.space” gTLD.  These changes are not sufficient to distinguish the Domain Name from Complainant’s mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).  Roche Therapeutics Inc. v. Williams Shorell, FA 1684961 (Forum Aug. 30, 2016) (“Complainant asserts Respondent’s <boniva.top> domain name is identical to the BONIVA mark.  The addition of a generic top level domain to a mark does not differentiate the domain from said mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”).  WIPO Overview 3.0, at ¶ 1.7, states that the test for confusing similarity “typically involves a side-by-side comparison of the domain name and the textual components of the relevant trademark to assess whether the mark is recognizable within the domain name.”  Notwithstanding the changes described above, Complainant’s mark is clearly recognizable within the Domain Name, and this establishes its confusing similarity to Complainant’s mark.

 

For the reasons set forth above, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the MICRO CENTER mark, in which Complainant has substantial and demonstrated rights.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

If a complainant makes a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), the burden of production shifts to respondent to come forward with evidence that it has rights or legitimate interests in it.  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”).  If a respondent fails to come forward with such evidence, the complainant’s prima facie evidence will be sufficient to establish that respondent lacks such rights or legitimate interests.  If the respondent does come forward with such evidence, the Panel must assess the evidence in its entirety.  At all times, the burden of proof remains on the complainant.  WIPO Overview 3.0, at ¶ 2.1.

 

Policy ¶ 4(c) lists the following three nonexclusive circumstances, any one of which if proven can demonstrate a respondent’s rights or legitimate interests in a domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii):

 

(i)            before any notice to respondent of the dispute, respondent has used or has made demonstrable preparations to use the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or

(ii)          respondent (as an individual, business or other organization) has been commonly known by the domain name, even if respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or

(iii)         respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.

 

Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name because (i) Complainant has not licensed or otherwise permitted Respondent to use its mark, (ii) Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name, and (iii) Respondent is not using the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services or for a legitimate noncommercial or other fair use because the web site resolving from it displays an Index with certain item links.  Clicking on an Index item directs the visitor to an error landing page at which no goods or services are advertised.  These allegations are addressed as follows:

 

Complainant submitted a written Certification signed by its general counsel which states among other things that Complainant has never licensed or authorized Respondent to use its mark in any way.  Complaint Annex Exhibit F.  Complainant has specific competence to make this statement, and it is unchallenged by any evidence before the Panel.  In the absence of evidence that a respondent is authorized to use a complainant’s mark in a domain name or that a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name, the respondent may be presumed to lack rights or legitimate interests in the domain name.  IndyMac Bank F.S.B. v. Eshback, FA 830934 (Forum Dec. 7, 2006) (finding that the respondent failed to establish rights and legitimate interests in the <emitmortgage.com> domain name as the respondent was not authorized to register domain names featuring the complainant’s mark and failed to submit evidence that it is commonly known by the domain name), Indeed, Inc. v. Ankit Bhardwaj / Recruiter, FA 1739470 (Forum Aug. 3, 2017) (”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.”).

 

The WHOIS information furnished to the Forum by the registrar lists the registrant of the Domain Name as “Rohit Saluja.”  This name bears no resemblance to the Domain Name.  Evidence could, of course, in a given case demonstrate that the respondent is commonly known by a domain name different from the name in which it registered the domain name, e.g., the case of a domain name incorporating the brand name of a specific product offered by and associated with the respondent.  In the absence of any such evidence, however, UDRP panels have consistently held that WHOIS evidence of a registrant name which does not correspond with the domain name is sufficient to prove that the respondent is not commonly known by the domain name.  Guardair Corporation v. Pablo Palermo, FA1407001571060 (Forum Aug. 28, 2014) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <guardair.com> domain name according to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), as the WHOIS information lists “Pablo Palermo” as registrant of the disputed domain name).  The Panel is satisfied that Respondent has not been commonly known by the Domain Name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

Complaint Annex Exhibit C is a screenshot of the error landing page to which the Domain Name ultimately resolves.  There is no substantive content on this page beyond notifying the visitor that it is an error page.  No goods or services are advertised or offered, nor is there any non-commercial message or other commentary of any kind.  It is clear from this that the Respondent is making no active use of the Domain Name.  Inactive holding of a domain name does not demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in the name for the purposes of Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).  George Weston Bakeries Inc. v. McBroom, FA 933276 (Forum Apr. 25, 2007) (finding that the respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in a domain name under either Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) where it failed to make any active use of the domain name).

 

Complainant has made its prima facie case.  On the evidence presented, and in the absence of any evidence from Respondent, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Policy ¶ 4(b) sets forth a nonexclusive list of four circumstances, any one of which if proven would be evidence of bad faith use and registration of a domain name.  They are as follows:

(i)            circumstances indicating that you have registered or you have acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant which is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of your documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or

(ii)          you have registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that you have engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or

(iii)         you have registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or

(iv)       by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of your web site or location or of a product of service on your web site or location.

 

The evidence of Respondent’s conduct discussed above in the rights or legitimate interests analysis also supports a finding of bad faith registration and use.  While Respondent’s conduct may not fall within any of the grounds articulated in Policy ¶ 4(b), that paragraph recognizes that mischief can assume many different forms and takes an open-ended approach to bad faith, listing some examples without attempting to enumerate all its varieties.  Worldwcom Exchange, Inc. v. Wei.com, Inc., WIPO Case No. D-2004-0955 (January 5, 2005), Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Domain Admin - This Domain is For Sale on GoDaddy.com / Trnames Premium Name Services, FA 1714157 (Forum Mar. 8, 2017) (determining that Policy ¶ 4(b) provisions are merely illustrative of bad faith, and that the respondent’s bad faith may be demonstrated by other allegations of bad faith under the totality of the circumstances)The non-exclusive nature of Policy ¶ 4(b) allows for consideration of additional factors in an analysis for bad faith, and the inactive holding of a domain name has been held to be evidence of bad faith. See VideoLink, Inc. v. Xantech Corporation, FA1503001608735 (Forum May 12, 2015) (“Failure to actively use a domain name is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”).

 

Additionally, although Complainant did not articulate the argument in so many words, Respondent registered and is using the Domain Name, which incorporates the MICRO CENTER mark verbatim, without itself having any connection with that mark or its owner, the Complainant.  Again, considering the non-exclusive nature of Policy ¶ 4(b), the registration and use of domain name that is confusingly similar to a trademark with which the respondent has no connection has frequently been held to be evidence of bad faith. See Kraft Foods (Norway) v. Wide, D2000-0911 (WIPO Sept. 23, 2000) (“[T]he fact that Respondent chosen [sic] to register a well-known mark to which [it] has no connections or rights indicates that [it] was in bad faith when registering the domain name at issue.”).

 

Finally, it is evident from the long-standing notoriety of Complainant’s MICRO CENTER mark, and from Respondent’s copying that mark verbatim into the Domain Name, that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant and its mark when it registered the Domain Name in August 2019 (WHOIS report submitted as Complaint Annex Exhibit A shows registration date).  Given the non-exclusive nature of Policy ¶ 4(b), registering a confusingly similar domain name with actual knowledge of a complainant’s rights in its mark has often been held to be evidence of bad faith registration and use for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).  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).

 

For the reasons set forth above, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

DECISION

Complainant having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <microcenter.space> Domain Name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

Charles A. Kuechenmeister, Panelist

October 7, 2019

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page