Maxim Integrated Products, Inc. v. Li Jiang
Claim Number: FA1911001871819
Complainant is Maxim Integrated Products, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Tsan Abrahamson, of Cobalt LLP, California, United States. Respondent is Li Jiang (“Respondent”), China.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <maximintegrated.co>, registered with Chengdu West Dimension Digital Technology Co., Ltd..
The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his or her 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 November 18, 2019; the Forum received payment on November 18, 2019.
On November 20, 2019, Chengdu West Dimension Digital Technology Co., Ltd. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <maximintegrated.co> domain name is registered with Chengdu West Dimension Digital Technology Co., Ltd. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Chengdu West Dimension Digital Technology Co., Ltd. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Chengdu West Dimension Digital Technology 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 November 26, 2019, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of December 16, 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@maximintegrated.co. Also on November 26, 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 Dec 23, 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. 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.
A. Complainant
Complainant, Maxim Integrated Products, Inc., designs, manufactures, and sells integrated circuits. Complainant has rights in the MAXIM mark through its registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (e.g., 1,337,707, registered on May 28, 1985). In addition, Complainant argues that it has common law rights in the MAXIM INTEGRATED mark. Respondent’s <maximintegrated.co> is identical to Complainant’s mark as it includes the MAXIM INTEGRATED mark in its entirety, adding the “.co” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).
Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the <maximintegrated.co> domain name. Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant’s mark and is not 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 legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent’s disputed domain name resolves to a webpage containing hyperlinks to third parties.
Respondent registered and uses the <maximintegrated.co> domain name in bad faith. Respondent has demonstrated a pattern of bad faith registration and use. Additionally, Respondent’s disputed domain name resolves to a website that contains third-party pay-per-click hyperlinks. Furthermore, Respondent engages in typosquatting. Finally, Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the MAXIM and MAXIM INTEGRATED marks.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
PRELIMINARY ISSUE: LANGUAGE OF PROCEEDINGS
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 spite of the fact that the Registration Agreement is in the Chinese language. 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. In the present case, the Panel has considered Complainant’s submissions that the disputed domain name and the website associated with it are in the English language, and that translating the Complaint into Chinese would cause unnecessary delay. The Panel has also considered that Respondent fails to submit any response or challenge to Complainant’s language request. All things considered, the Panel accepts Complainant’s request to adopt English as the language of these proceedings.
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 Panel finds in favor of Complainant.
Complainant has shown rights in the MAXIM mark based on its trade mark registrations in various jurisdictions. Registration of a mark generally sufficiently confers a complainant’s rights in a mark for the purposes of Policy ¶4(a)(i). Additionally, based on Complainant’s materials, the Panel also accepts that Complainant has common law rights in the MAXIM INTEGRATED mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
The Panel accepts Complainant’s argument that Respondent’s <maximintegrated.co> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark as it includes the MAXIM or MAXIM INTEGRATED marks in its entirety, adding only the generic description of “integrated” and the “.co” TLD. The addition of this generic description of “integrated” (which is suggestive of Complainant’s product “integrated circuits”), and the addition of the “.co” ccTLD, both do not help distinguish the disputed domain name for purposes of Policy ¶4(a)(i).
The Panel finds in favor Complainant.
The Panel is satisfied that Complainant has made out a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and that Respondent fails to overturn this prima facie case.
Specifically, Complainant argues that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and Respondent is not a licensee or authorized to use Complainant’s MAXIM or MAXIM INTEGRATED marks. The WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the registrant as “Li Jiang,” and there is no other evidence to suggest that Respondent was authorized to use the MAXIM INTEGRATED or MAXIM marks. Complainant also argues that Respondent fails to use the <maximintegrated.co> domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use, since Respondent’s disputed domain name resolves to a webpage containing related and unrelated pay-per-click hyperlinks. All things considered, the Panel accepts that Complainant has made out a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), which Respondent fails to overturn.
The Panel accepts that Respondent registered and uses the <maximintegrated.com> domain name in bad faith.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <maximintegrated.co> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Eugene I. Low, Panelist
Dated: Dec 26, 2019
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page