World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. v. kaosar ali
Claim Number: FA1910001867698
Complainant is World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Matthew C. Winterroth of World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc., Connecticut, USA. Respondent is kaosar ali (“Respondent”), Bangladesh.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <hellina-cell.com> and <wwehellinacell.com>, each registered with 123-Reg Limited.
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.
Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on October 21, 2019; the Forum received payment on October 21, 2019.
On October 22, 2019, 123-Reg Limited confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <hellina-cell.com> and <wwehellinacell.com> domain names are registered with 123-Reg Limited and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. 123-Reg Limited has verified that Respondent is bound by the 123-Reg Limited 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 23, 2019, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of November 12, 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@hellina-cell.com, postmaster@wwehellinacell.com. Also on October 23, 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 November 15, 2019 pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Paul M. DeCicco 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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant contends as follows:
Complainant, World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. is an integrated media organization, and a recognized leader in global entertainment.
Complainant has rights in the WWE and HELL IN A CELL marks based upon registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”).
Respondent’s <hellina-cell.com> and <wwehellinacell.com> domain name are confusingly similar with Complainant’s trademarks as they contain Complainant’s WWE and/or HELL IN A CELL marks in their entirety, merely adding the generic top level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.”
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <hellina-cell.com> and <wwehellinacell.com> domain names. Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant’s WWE or HELL IN A CELL marks and is not commonly known by the disputed domain names. Additionally, Respondent doesn’t use the disputed domain names for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent uses the disputed domain names to redirect Internet users to Respondent’s websites where it hosts unauthorized video content of Complainant. In addition, Respondent attempts to phish for users’ personal financial related information.
Respondent registered and uses the <hellina-cell.com> and <wwehellinacell.com> domain names in bad faith. Respondent attempts to disrupt Complainant’s business by offering Complainant’s goods without authorization. Respondent also uses the disputed domain names to host a phishing scheme that culls credit card information from website users. Furthermore, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s marks when it registered the <hellina-cell.com> and <wwehellinacell.com> domain names.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant has rights in the WWE and HELL IN A CELL marks.
Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and had not been authorized to use Complainant’s trademark in any capacity.
Respondent registered the at‑issue domain name after Complainant acquired rights in the WWE and HELL IN A CELL trademarks.
Respondent uses the <hellina-cell.com> and <wwehellinacell.com> domain names to direct internet users to Respondent’s websites where it hosts video content owned by Complainant without authority to do so. In addition, Respondent attempts to phish for the website users’ personal and financial information.
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 at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.
Complainant’s USPTO trademark registrations for both WWE and HELL IN A CELL shows Complainant’s rights in these marks under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). 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).”).
Respondent’s <hellina-cell.com> and <wwehellinacell.com> domain names each contain Complainant’s entire HELL IN A CELL trademark, in one instance less its domain name impermissible spaces with an irrelevant hyphen inserted, and in the other instance, also less its spaces, but preceded by Complainant’s WWE mark. Both domains conclude with the top-level domain name “.com”. The differences between Complainant’s trademarks and Respondent’s domain names fail to distinguish the domain names from Complainant’s marks for the purpose of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). The Panel thus concludes that Respondent’s <hellina-cell.com> and <wwehellinacell.com> domain names are respectively confusingly similar to Complainant’s HELL IN A CELL and Complainant’s WWE and HELL IN A CELL trademarks. See Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. v. Yangxiaoyi / Qingyuan Tianheng Trading Company Ltd., FA 1625637 (Forum June 23, 2015) (finding the combination of a complainant’s marks does not allow a respondent to avoid a finding of confusing similarity under Policy ¶4(a)(i)); see also Daniel Handler v. Masanori Toriimoto / PLAN-B Co.,Ltd, FA 1778986 (Forum May 7, 2018) (finding that hyphens and top-level domains are irrelevant for purposes of the Policy).
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. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006).
Here, Respondent lacks both rights and legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain names. Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant’s trademarks 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 either at‑issue domain name.
WHOIS information for the at-issue domain names identifies the domain names’ registrant as “kaosar ali.” The record before the Panel contains no evidence that otherwise tends to prove that Respondent is commonly known by either the <hellina-cell.com> or the <wwehellinacell.com> domain name. The Panel therefore concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by either <hellina-cell.com> or <wwehellinacell.com> for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Coppertown Drive-Thru Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089 (Forum July 17, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <coppertown.com> domain name where there was no evidence in the record, including the WHOIS information, suggesting that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name).
Respondent’s <hellina-cell.com> and <wwehellinacell.com> domain names pose as being affiliated or sponsored by Complainant. On browsing to such addresses internet visitors land at websites which allow the viewing of unauthorized video content owned, copyrighted and legitimately offered online by Complainant. The Respondent’s websites further contain Complainant’s trademark and other intellectual property. Respondent’s use of the domain names to impermissibly offer Complainant’s proprietary content for third party viewing shows neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4 (c)(i), nor a non-commercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See A Fadal Engineering, LLC v. DANIEL STRIZICH,INDEPENDENT TECHNOLOGY SERVICE INC, FA 1581942 (Forum Nov. 13, 2014) (finding that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain to sell products related to Complainant without authorization “does not amount to a bona fide offering of goods or services under policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”).
Given the forgoing, Complainant satisfies its initial burden and shows Respondent’s lack of rights and legitimate interests in the at-issue domain names under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
The at-issue domain names were each registered and used in bad faith. As discussed below without limitation, bad faith circumstances are present from which the Panel concludes that Respondent registered and used the at-issue domain names in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
First, Respondent uses the at-issue domain names to attempt to divert internet users to Respondent’s website. The website features unauthorized video content from Complainant’s own website. Such use of the domain names to promote unauthorized goods, namely Complainant’s videos, shows Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the at-issue domain names under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See Pilgrim Films and Television, Inc. v. Nikola Pesic a/k/a Home, FA 1236018 (Forum Jan. 20, 2009) (finding that a domain name that resolved to a website that displayed Complainant’s video programming in an unauthorized manner disrupted Complainant’s business and was used in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)).
Next, Respondent registered and uses the at-issue domain names to host a phishing scheme. Respondent’s unauthorized offering of Complainant’s video content on websites addressed by the at-issue domain names serves as a device for gaining personal information such as credit card information from website visitors. This use of the confusingly similar domain names further demonstrates Respondent’s bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Klabzuba Oil & Gas, Inc. v. LAKHPAT SINGH BHANDARI, FA1506001625750 (Forum July 17, 2015) (“Respondent uses the <klabzuba-oilgas.com> domain to engage in phishing, which means Respondent registered and uses the domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”).
Finally, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in its WWE and HELL IN A CELL marks when it registered <hellina-cell.com> and <wwehellinacell.com> as domain names. Respondent’s actual knowledge is evident from the notoriety of Complainant’s trademarks, the use of Complainant’s intellectual property on websites addressed by the at-issue domain names, and from Respondent’s registration of a domain name containing multiple trademarks owned by Complainant. Respondent’s registration of the two confusingly similar domain names while having knowledge of Complainant’s rights therein, shows Respondent’s bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶4(a)(iii). See Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name); see also, 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).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <hellina-cell.com> and <wwehellinacell.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist
Dated: November 17, 2019
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page