Dell Inc. v. Crystal International
Claim Number: FA1910001868000
Complainant is Dell Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Fernando Triana, Texas, USA. Respondent is Crystal International (“Respondent”), South Korea.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <dellcloud.co>, registered with Megazone Corp., dba HOSTING.KR.
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.
Darryl C. Wilson, as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on October 22, 2019; the Forum received payment on October 22, 2019.
On October 22, 2019, Megazone Corp., dba HOSTING.KR confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <dellcloud.co> domain name is registered with Megazone Corp., dba HOSTING.KR and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Megazone Corp., dba HOSTING.KR has verified that Respondent is bound by the Megazone Corp., dba HOSTING.KR 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 firstname.lastname@example.org. In addition, 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 14, 2019 pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Darryl C. Wilson 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.
Panel Note: Supported Language Request
The Panel notes that Complainant requests that the language of this administrative proceeding proceed in the English language pursuant to UDRP Rule 11(a). Complainant makes this request in light of the Korean language Registration Agreement. 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 demonstrates 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 Korean language included in the Registration Agreement. 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).
Pursuant to UDRP Rule 11(a), the Panel finds that persuasive evidence has been adduced by Complainant to suggest the likely possibility that the Respondent is conversant and proficient in the English language. After considering the circumstance of the present case, the Panel decides that the proceeding should be in English.
Complainant’s business consists of the development, sale, repair and support of computers and related products and services. Complainant has rights in the DELL mark through its trademark registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 1,616,517, registered Oct. 9, 1990). Respondent’s <dellcloud.co> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s DELL mark as it incorporates the mark in its entirety, merely adding the descriptive term “cloud” and a “.co” country code top-level domain (“ccTLD”).
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <dellcloud.co> domain name. Respondent is not authorized or licensed to use Complainant’s DELL mark and is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Additionally, Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, Respondent’s disputed domain name resolves to a parked webpage.
Respondent registered and uses the <dellcloud.co> domain name in bad faith. Respondent attempts to disrupt Complainant and create a likelihood of confusion as to source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of Respondent’s website. Furthermore, Respondent failed to respond to Complainant’s cease and desist letters. Finally, Respondent was fully aware of Complainant’s rights in the DELL mark prior to registering the disputed domain name.
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant is Dell Inc. (“Complainant”), of Round Rock, TX, USA. Complainant is the owner of domestic and international registrations for its mark DELL, and numerous variations thereof, which constitute the Dell family of marks. Complainant has continuously used its mark since at least as early as 1987, in connection with its development, sale, repair, and support of computers and related products and services.
Respondent is Crystal International (“Respondent”), of Seoul, South Korea. Respondent’s registrar’s address is listed as Seoul, South Korea as well.
The Panel notes that the <dellcloud.co> domain name was registered on or about August 26, 2019.
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 claims rights in the DELL mark based upon registration of the mark with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 1,616,517, registered Oct. 9, 1990). Registration of a mark with the USPTO is sufficient to establish rights in that mark. See 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). The Panel here finds that Complainant’s registration of the DELL mark with the USPTO is sufficient to establish rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant next argues Respondent’s <dellcloud.co> domain name is confusingly similar to the DELL mark, as the name incorporates the mark in its entirety, merely adding the descriptive term “cloud” and a “.co” ccTLD. Such changes are not sufficient to distinguish a domain name from an incorporated mark in a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis. See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) (“Where a relevant trademark is recognizable within a disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element.”); see also Thomson Reuters Global Resources v Matthew Krawitz, FA 1548336 (Forum Apr. 21, 2014) (“Respondent adds the country-code top-level domain (“ccTLD”) “.co” to Complainant’s mark in the disputed domain name, which also fails to distinguish the domain name from Complainant’s mark… Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent’s <rueters.co> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s REUTERS mark.”). The Panel here finds that the <dellcloud.co> domain name is confusingly similar to the DELL mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Respondent raises no contentions with regards to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
The Complainant has proven this element.
The Panel notes that 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. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)); see also 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”).
The Panel here finds that Complainant has set forth the requisite prima facie case.
Complainant argues that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <dellcloud.co> domain name, as Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Complainant authorized Respondent to use the DELL mark in any way. Where a response is lacking, WHOIS information can support a finding that the respondent is not commonly known by a disputed domain name. See Philip Morris USA Inc. v. Usama Ramzan, FA 1737750 (Forum July 26, 2017) (“We begin by noting that Complainant contends, and Respondent does not deny, that Respondent has not been commonly known by the <marlborocoupon.us> domain name, and that Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use the MARLBORO mark in any way. Moreover, the pertinent WHOIS information identifies the registrant of the domain name only as “Usama Ramzan,” which does not resemble the domain name. On this record, we conclude that Respondent has not been commonly known by the challenged domain name so as to have acquired rights to or legitimate interests in it within the purview of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).”). The WHOIS information of record identifies the registrant of the at-issue domain name as “Crystal International,” and no information on the record indicates Respondent was authorized to register a domain name incorporating Complainant’s mark. The Panel here finds that Respondent has not been commonly known by the <dellcloud.co> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)e.
Complainant also asserts Respondent’s inactive holding of the <dellcloud.co> domain name indicates it does not have rights or legitimate interests in the name. Inactive holding of a domain name does not demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in the name per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See 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 contends Respondent’s domain name does not resolve to an active webpage. The Panel here finds that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the domain name per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).
Respondent raises no contentions with regards to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
The Complainant has proven this element.
Complainant contends Respondent’s intentional use of the <dellcloud.co> domain name to create a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark in order to attract Internet users for commercial gain is evidence of Respondent’s bad faith. Use of a confusingly similar domain name for commercial purposes unrelated to a complainant’s business can indicate bad faith registration and use per Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and/or (iv). See PopSockets LLC v. san mao, FA 1740903 (Forum Aug. 27, 2017) (finding disruption of a complainant’s business which was not directly commercial competitive behavior was nonetheless sufficient to establish bad faith registration and use per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)); see also Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Bonds, FA 873143 (Forum Feb. 16, 2007) (“The Panel finds such use to constitute bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv), because [r]espondent is taking advantage of the confusing similarity between the <metropolitanlife.us> domain name and Complainant’s METLIFE mark in order to profit from the goodwill associated with the mark.”). The Panel again notes Complainant’s contention that the <dellcloud.co> domain name resolves to a parked website. Complainant further contends that the use of the DELL mark along with the term “cloud” exacerbates user confusion that is disruptive and commercially benefits Respondent in some way. The Panel here finds that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith per Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and/or (iv).
Complainant also contends that in light of the fame and notoriety of Complainant's DELL mark, Respondent was well aware of Complainant's rights in the mark prior to registering the domain name. The Panel here notes that any arguments of bad faith based on constructive notice are irrelevant because UDRP case precedent declines to find bad faith as a result of constructive knowledge. See The Way Int'l, Inc. v. Diamond Peters, D2003-0264 (WIPO May 29, 2003) ("As to constructive knowledge, the Panel takes the view that there is no place for such a concept under the Policy."). The Panel agrees with Complainant, however, that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the mark prior to registering the disputed domain name and finds that actual knowledge is adequate evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Orbitz Worldwide, LLC v. Domain Librarian, FA 1535826 (Forum Feb. 6, 2014) (“The Panel notes that although the UDRP does not recognize ‘constructive notice’ as sufficient grounds for finding Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) bad faith, the Panel here finds actual knowledge through the name used for the domain and the use made of it.”). The Panel here finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the mark and registered and used the name in bad faith.
Respondent raises no contentions with regards to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
The Complainant has proven this element.
As the Complainant has established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that Complainant’s requested relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <dellcloud.co> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Darryl C. Wilson, Panelist
Dated: November 29, 2019
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page