Dell Inc. v. Liu Bi Cheng / Shen Zhen San Se Shu Ma Shi Xun Ke Ji You Xian Gong Si
Claim Number: FA1910001865928
Complainant is Dell Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Caitlin Costello, Texas, USA. Respondent is Liu Bi Cheng / Shen Zhen San Se Shu Ma Shi Xun Ke Ji You Xian Gong Si (“Respondent”), China.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <dellmonitor.com> (“Domain Name”), registered with Alibaba Cloud Computing (Beijing) Co., Ltd..
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.
Nicholas J.T. Smith as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on October 9, 2019; the Forum received payment on October 9, 2019. The Complainant was submitted in both Chinese and English
On October 10, 2019, Alibaba Cloud Computing (Beijing) Co., Ltd. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <dellmonitor.com> domain name is registered with Alibaba Cloud Computing (Beijing) Co., Ltd. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Alibaba Cloud Computing (Beijing) Co., Ltd. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Alibaba Cloud Computing (Beijing) Co., Ltd. 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 October 17, 2019, the Forum served the Chinese Complaint and all Annexes, including a Chinese Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of November 6, 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@dellmonitor.com. Also on October 17, 2019, the Chinese 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 November 8, 2019, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Nicholas J.T. Smith 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.
Preliminary Issue: Language of Proceeding
The language of the Registration Agreement in this case is Chinese. The Complaint has been provided in English and Chinese.
It is established practice to take UDRP Rules 10(b) and (c) into consideration for the purpose of determining the language of the proceeding to ensure fairness and justice to both parties. Factors which previous panels have seen as particularly compelling are: WHOIS information which establishes Respondent in a country which would demonstrate familiarity with the English language, filing of a trademark registration with an entity which shows an understanding of the English language, and any evidence (or lack thereof) exhibiting Respondent’s understanding of the language requested by Complainant. See The Argento Wine Company Limited v. Argento Beijing Trading Company, D2009-0610 (WIPO July 1, 2009) (panel exercising discretion in deciding that the language of the proceedings advance in English, contrary to the Registration Agreement, based on evidence that respondent has command of the language). Further, the Panel may weigh the relative time and expense in enforcing the Chinese language agreement, which would result in prejudice toward either party. See Finter Bank Zurich v. Shumin Peng, D2006-0432 (WIPO June 12, 2006) (deciding that the proceeding should be in English, stating, “It is important that the language finally decided by the Panel for the proceeding is not prejudicial to either one of the parties in his or her ability to articulate the arguments for the case.”) and Zappos.com, Inc. v. Zufu aka Huahaotrade, Case No. D2008-1191 (WIPO October 15, 2008) (holding that proceedings could be conducted in English even though the registration agreement was in Chinese where “the disputed domain resolves to a website [that] is exclusively in English, from which can be reasonably presumed that the Respondent has the ability to communicate in English in order to conduct his business over the website in English”)
Pursuant to Rule 11(a), the Panel determines that the language requirement has been satisfied through the Chinese language Complaint and Commencement Notification, and, absent a Response, determines that the remainder of the proceedings may be conducted in English as to continue this proceeding in English would not materially result in prejudice to Respondent. See TRIA Beauty, Inc. v. Xu Bao Rong c/o Xu Bao, FA 1336978 (Forum Aug. 30, 2010).
A. Complainant
Complainant is a world leader in computers, computer accessories, and other computer-related products and services. Complainant has rights in the DELL mark through its registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g. Reg. No. 1,616,571, registered Oct. 9, 1990) and the Chinese State Administration of Industry and Commerce (“SAIC”) (e.g. Reg. No. 612102, registered Sep. 7, 1997). Respondent’s <dellmonitor.com> domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark as it incorporates the DELL mark in its entirety, merely tacking on the generic term “monitor” and the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).
Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the <dellmonitor.com> domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name, and Complainant has not authorized, licensed, or otherwise permitted Respondent to use the mark. Respondent fails to use the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent uses the Domain Name for a website (“Respondent’s Website”) to attempt to deceive consumers into thinking that Respondent or Respondent’s business is Complainant or affiliated with Complainant. Respondent uses the Domain Name to sell suspected counterfeit versions of Complainant’s products.
Respondent registered and uses the <dellmonitor.com> domain name in bad faith. Respondent uses the Domain Name to pass off as Complainant and sell counterfeit versions of Complainant’s products. Respondent registered the <dellmonitor.com> domain name with knowledge of Complainant’s trademark rights as evidences by Respondent’s use of Complainant’s logo, products, and news stories on the resolving webpage.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant holds trademark rights for the DELL mark. The Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s DELL mark. Complainant has established that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the use of the Domain Name and that Respondent registered and has used the Domain Name in bad faith.
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 has rights in the DELL mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through its registration of the mark with the USPTO (e.g. Reg. No. 1,616,571, registered Oct. 9, 1990) and SAIC (e.g., Reg. No. 612102, registered Sep. 7, 1997). Registration of a mark with the USPTO and SAIC is sufficient to establish rights in that mark. See Emerson Electric Co. v. Cai Jian Lin / Shen Zhen Shi colorsun Zi Dong Hua You Xian Gong Si, FA 1798802 (Forum Aug. 31, 2018) (“Registering a mark with multiple trademark agencies around the world is sufficient to establish rights in a mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”).
The Panel finds that the <dellmonitor.com> Domain Name is confusingly similar to the DELL mark as it fully incorporates the DELL mark adding only the word “monitor” and the “.com” gTLD. The addition of a descriptive term and a gTLD are not sufficient to distinguish a domain name from an incorporated mark in a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis. See Colin LeMahieu v. NANO DARK, FA 1786065 (Forum June 9, 2018) (finding that the addition of a generic term and the generic top-level domain “.com” insufficient to differentiate the <nanodark.com> domain name from the NANO mark); see also Dell Inc. v. Protection of Private Person / Privacy Protection, FA 1681432 (Forum Aug. 1, 2016) (“A TLD (whether a gTLD, sTLD or ccTLD) is disregarded under a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis because domain name syntax requires TLDs.”).
The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant alleges that Respondent holds no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. In order for Complainant to succeed under this element, it must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the Domain Name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006) and AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Forum Sept. 25, 2006) (“Complainant must first make a prima facie showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names, which burden is light. If Complainant satisfies its burden, then the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain names.”). The Panel holds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case.
Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name as Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name, nor has Complainant authorized Respondent to use the DELL mark. Respondent has no relationship, affiliation, connection, endorsement or association with Complainant. WHOIS information can help support a finding that a respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, especially where a privacy service has been engaged. See State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Dale Anderson, FA1504001613011 (Forum May 21, 2015) (concluding that because the WHOIS record lists “Dale Anderson” as the registrant of the disputed domain name, the respondent was not commonly known by the <statefarmforum.com> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)); see also Kohler Co. v. Privacy Service, FA1505001621573 (Forum July 2, 2015) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) where “Privacy Service” was listed as the registrant of the disputed domain name). The WHOIS lists “Liu Bi Cheng / Shen Zhen San Se Shu Ma Shi Xun Ke Ji You Xian Gong Si” as registrant of record. Coupled with Complainant’s unrebutted assertions as to absence of any affiliation or authorization between the parties, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name in accordance with Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
The Domain Name resolves to a page titled “Dell” that prominently displays a blue logo that is almost identical to Complainant’s logo (which is also displayed in the color blue). It includes pages that purport to feature IT products sold by Complainant and a “News” page with news stories of Complainant, despite the fact that Respondent is unassociated with Complainant in any way, including as a reseller of Complainant’s products. In summary, the Respondent’s Website is designed to give the impression that the Respondent entity is connected to or an affiliate of the Complainant for the purpose of selling competing products. Use of a disputed domain name to pass off as a complainant in order to compete with a complainant is generally not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Mortgage Research Center LLC v. Miranda, FA 993017 (Forum July 9, 2007) (“Because [the] respondent in this case is also attempting to pass itself off as [the] complainant, presumably for financial gain, the Panel finds the respondent is not using the <mortgageresearchcenter.org> domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”); see also Ripple Labs Inc. v. Jessie McKoy / Ripple Reserve Fund, FA 1790949 (Forum July 9, 2018) (finding the respondent did not use the domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services per Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) where the website resolving from the disputed domain name featured the complainant’s mark and various photographs related to the complainant’s business).
The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
The Panel finds that, at the time Respondent registered the Domain Name, January 26, 2018, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s DELL mark. The Respondent uses the Domain Name to pass itself off as Complainant for financial gain (by offering products in direct competition with Complainant and making direct reference to Complainant on its website) or to disrupt Complainant’s business. This includes including stories on the Respondent’s Website about Complainant. In the absence of rights or legitimate interests of its own this demonstrates registration in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
The Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the Domain Name in bad faith. Respondent uses the Domain Name as part of a broad scheme to pass itself off as being connected or affiliated with Complainant in order to compete with and disrupt Complainant’s business. Such behavior is indicative of bad faith registration and use per Policy ¶¶ 4(b) (iii) and (iv). See DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Bargman, D2000-0222 (WIPO May 29, 2000) (finding that the respondent’s use of the title “Dodgeviper.com Official Home Page” gave consumers the impression that the complainant endorsed and sponsored the respondent’s website); see also Am. Int’l Group, Inc. v. Busby, FA 156251 (Forum May 30, 2003) (finding that the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith where the respondent hosted a website that “duplicated Complainant’s mark and logo, giving every appearance of being associated or affiliated with Complainant’s business . . . to perpetrate a fraud upon individual shareholders who respected the goodwill surrounding the AIG mark”);
The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <dellmonitor.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant
Nicholas J.T. Smith, Panelist
Dated: November 10, 2019
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page