Koppers Inc. / Koppers Delaware, Inc. v. carlos urrego / 1982
Claim Number: FA2107001956786
Complainant is Koppers Inc. / Koppers Delaware, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Barry I. Friedman of Metz Lewis Brodman Must O'Keefe LLC, Pennsylvania, USA. Respondent is carlos urrego / 1982 ("Respondent"), Florida, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <koppers.us>, registered with NameCheap, Inc..
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.
David E. Sorkin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on July 27, 2021; the Forum received payment on July 27, 2021.
On July 27, 2021, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by email to the Forum that the <koppers.us> 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 the U.S. Department of Commerce's usTLD Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy").
On August 2, 2021, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 23, 2021 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via email to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@koppers.us. Also on August 2, 2021, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the email 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 August 26, 2021, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed David E. Sorkin 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 to the usTLD Dispute Resolution Policy ("Rules"). Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the usTLD Policy, usTLD 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 (a Pennsylvania corporation and its subsidiary, a Delaware corporation) has used the KOPPERS trademark for many years in connection with chemicals, wood preservation, and other products. Complainant owns longstanding United States trademark registrations for KOPPERS in both standard character and stylized form.
Respondent
registered the disputed domain name <koppers.us> in June 2021. The
domain name redirects to a web page that appears to be a file directory listing
of error pages. Complainant alleges that Respondent is using the domain name to
misdirect payments from Complainant's customers via "an email social media
attack which has cause[d] at least one customer of Complainant to wire money to
a fraudulent account." Complainant states that Respondent is not commonly
known by the disputed domain name, is not a licensee of Complainant, and is not
authorized to use Complainant's mark.
Complainant contends on the above grounds that the disputed domain name <koppers.us>
is identical or confusingly similar to its KOPPERS mark; that Respondent lacks
rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and that the
disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical to a mark in which Complainant has rights; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered or is being used 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 or is being used in bad faith.
Given the similarity between the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy ("UDRP") and the usTLD Policy, the Panel will draw upon UDRP principles as applicable in rendering its decision.
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 Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, § 4.3 (3d ed. 2017), available at http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (dismissing complaint where complainant failed to "produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations").
The disputed domain name <koppers.us> incorporates Complainant's registered KOPPERS trademark, adding the ".us" top-level domain. The addition of a top-level domain is normally irrelevant for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. See, e.g., Radio Systems Corp. v. Mustahsan ali Agha / Amazon affiliate, FA 1939908 (Forum Apr. 14, 2021) (finding <petsafe.us> identical to PETSAFE); see also Koppers, Inc., Koppers Delaware, Inc. v. Jorge Villalva, D2018-0764 (WIPO May 10, 2018) (finding <koppers-us.com> confusingly similar to KOPPERS). The Panel considers the disputed domain name to be identical to a mark in which Complainant has rights.
Under the Policy, the Complainant must first make a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and then the burden shifts to the Respondent to come forward with concrete evidence of such rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Productions, Inc. v. Entertainment Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006).
The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's registered mark without authorization, and Respondent does not appear to have made any legitimate use of the domain name nor any preparations for such use.
Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name, and Respondent has failed to come forward with any evidence of such rights or interests. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has sustained its burden of proving that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
Finally, Complainant must show that the disputed domain name was registered or is being used in bad faith. Under paragraph 4(b)(iii) of the Policy, bad faith may be shown by evidence that Respondent registered the disputed domain name "primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor." Under paragraph 4(b)(iv), bad faith may be shown by evidence that "by using the domain name, [Respondent] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [Respondent's] web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [Respondent's] web site or location or of a product or service on [Respondent's] web site or location."
Respondent registered a domain name corresponding to Complainant's registered mark, and is alleged to be using it solely for the purpose of impersonating Complainant in connection with a fraudulent phishing scheme. Such conduct is indicative of bad faith registration and use under the Policy. See, e.g., Garrett Transportation I Inc. v. Hei Ze Shang Zi, FA 1933407 (Forum Mar. 24, 2021) (finding bad faith in similar circumstances); President & Fellows of Harvard College v. Sunil Shahzad, FA 1802728 (Forum Sept. 18, 2018) (same). Although Complainant has not presented evidence of the alleged phishing scheme, Complainant's counsel has certified the allegations contained in the Complaint to be accurate, and Respondent has neither disputed these allegations nor offered any alternative reasons for registering the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent registered or is using the domain name in bad faith.
Having considered the three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <koppers.us> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
David E. Sorkin, Panelist
Dated: August 30, 2021
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page