The Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York v. Obaid Hussain / Zero to 100 Solutions
Claim Number: FA2003001887543
Complainant is The Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York (“Complainant”), represented by Eric J. Shimanoff of Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman, P.C., New York, United States. Respondent is Obaid Hussain / Zero to 100 Solutions (“Respondent”), Pakistan.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <columbiauniversityonline.education>, (‘the Domain Name’) registered with NameCheap, Inc..
The undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Dawn Osborne as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on March 9, 2020; the Forum received payment on March 9, 2020.
On March 10, 2020, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <columbiauniversityonline.education> 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 March 10, 2020, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 30, 2020 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@columbiauniversityonline.education. Also on March 10, 2020, 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 April 3, 2020 pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Dawn Osborne 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
The Complainant’s contentions can be summarised as follows:
The Complainant is the owner of the trade mark COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY registered in the USA for educational services with first use recorded as 1912.
The Domain Name registered in 2019 is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark adding only the generic term ‘online’ and the gTLD “.education”.
The Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, is not commonly known by it and is not authorised by the Complainant.
The Domain Name has been used to offer competing educational services on a web site and in e mails where the Respondent has sought to pass itself off as the Complainant and collected personal details from customers. This is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. It is registration and use in bad faith confusing Internet users for gain and disrupting the Complainant’s business in opportunistic bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
The Complainant is the owner of the trade mark COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY registered in the USA for educational services with first use recorded as 1912.
The Domain Name registered in 2019 has been used to offer competing educational services on a site and in e mails passing the Respondent off as the Complainant.
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”).
Identical and/or Confusingly Similar
The Domain Name consists of the Complainant’s COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY mark (registered in the USA for, inter alia, educational services with first use recorded as 1912), the generic term ‘online’ and the gTLD “.education”.
The addition of the generic term ‘online’ to the Complainant’s mark does not prevent confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the Complainant’s mark. See Abbott Laboratories v Miles White, FA 1646590 (Forum Dec 10, 2015) (holding that the addition of generic terms do not adequately distinguish a disputed domain name from complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)).
The gTLD “.education” does not serve to distinguish the Domain Name from the Complainant’s mark. See Red Hat Inc v Haecke FA 726010 (Forum July 24, 2006) (concluding that the redhat.org domain name is identical to the complainant's red hat mark because the mere addition of the gTLD was insufficient to differentiate the disputed domain name from the mark).
Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar for the purpose to a mark in which the Complainant has rights.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant has not authorised the use of its mark. The Respondent has not answered this Complaint and there is no evidence or reason to suggest the Respondent is, in fact, commonly known by the Domain Name. See Alaska Air Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines v. Song Bin, FA1408001574905 (Forum September 17, 2014) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name as demonstrated by the WHOIS information and based on the fact that the complainant had not licensed or authorized the respondent to use its ALASKA AIRLINES mark). The use is commercial so cannot be legitimate noncommercial or fair use.
The Respondent has used the site attached to the Domain Name for competing services and has offered educational services in e mails passing itself off as the Complainant. The Panel finds this deceptive and confusing. As such it cannot amount to the bona fide offering of goods and services. See Am. Intl Group Inc v Benjamin FA 944242 (Forum May 11, 2007) (finding that the Respondent's use of a confusingly similar domain name to advertise real estate services which competed with the Complainant's business did not constitute a bona fide use of goods and services). See also DaVita Inc. v. Cynthia Rochelo, FA 1738034 (Forum July 20, 2017) (”Passing off in furtherance of a phishing scheme is not considered a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use.”).
As such the Panelist finds that the Respondent does not have rights or a legitimate interest in the Domain Name and that the Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
The Respondent has not answered this Complaint or explained why it should be allowed to register a domain name containing the Complainant’s mark.
In the opinion of the panelist the use made of the Domain Name in relation to the site is confusing and disruptive in that visitors to the site might reasonably believe it is connected to or approved by the Complainant. The e mails sent using the Domain Name are deceptive and amount to passing off referring to the Complainant’s history and showing actual knowledge of the Complainant on the part of the Respondent. Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain Internet users to its website by creating likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trade marks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the web site or services offered on it likely to disrupt the business of the Complainant. See Asbury Auto Group Inc v Tex. Int'l Prop Assocs FA 958542 (Forum May 29, 2007) (finding that the respondent's use of the disputed domain name to point to competing dealerships not connected with the complainant's business would likely lead to confusion amongst Internet users as to the sponsorship or affiliation of those third party businesses and was therefore evidence of bad faith and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)). Impersonating a complainant by use of the complainant’s mark in a fraudulent e-mail scam is disruptive and evinces bad faith registration and use. See Microsoft Corporation v Terrence Green/ Whois Agent/Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc., FA 1661030 (Forum Apr 4 2016) (finding that respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to send fraudulent e mails constituted bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)).
As such, the Panel holds that the Complainant has made out its case that the Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith under Policy 4 (b)(iii) and (iv) and has satisfied the third limb of the Policy.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <columbiauniversityonline.education> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Dawn Osborne, Panelist
Dated: April 3, 2020
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page