Parchment LLC v. Ge, Xiangchen
Claim Number: FA2109001962121
Complainant is Parchment LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Dwayne K. Goetzel, Texas, USA. Respondent is Ge, Xiangchen (“Respondent”), China.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <parchment-document.com>, registered with Dnspod, 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.
Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on September 1, 2021; the Forum received payment on September 1, 2021. The Complaint was received in English.
On September 2, 2021, Dnspod, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <parchment-document.com> domain name is registered with Dnspod, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Dnspod, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Dnspod, 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 September 7, 2021, the Forum served the English language Complaint and all Annexes, including a English and Chinese language Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 27, 2021 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@parchment-document.com. Also on September 7, 2021, the English and Chinese language 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 October 4, 2021, 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 name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
PRELIMINARY ISSUE: LANGUAGE OF PROCEEDING
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. Notably, the at-issue domain names consists of English letters, not Chinese characters, Complainant’s PARCHMENT mark is in English, and the domain name is used to host with content which is in English. After considering the circumstance of the present case and in light of the fact that Respondent has not responded to the substance of the Complaint, the Panel finds that the proceeding should be in English.
A. Complainant
Complainant contends as follows:
Complainant, Parchment LLC, provides services to order, claim, manage, and verify academic records.
Complainant has rights in the PARCHMENT mark based upon the registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”).
Respondent’s <parchment-document.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark.
Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <parchment-document.com> domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name and Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use the PARCHMENT mark. Additionally, Respondent does not use the domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use as Respondent uses the domain to pass off as Complainant and send fraudulent information.
Respondent registered and uses the <parchment-document.com> domain name in bad faith. Respondent uses the domain to pass itself off as Complainant and send fraudulent information. Additionally, Respondent had constructive and/or actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the PARCHMENT mark based on the fame of the mark and Respondent’s efforts to pass off.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant has rights in the PARCHMENT mark.
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 names after Complainant acquired rights in the PARCHMENT trademark.
Respondent uses the at-issue domain names to pose as Complainant in furtherance of fraud.
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 registration of its PARCHMENT mark with the USPTO demonstrates Complainant’s rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Haas Automation, Inc. v. Jim Fraser, FA 1627211 (Forum Aug. 4, 2015) (finding that Complainant’s USPTO registrations for the HAAS mark sufficiently demonstrate its rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)).
Respondent’s <parchment-document.com> domain name consists of Complainant’s PARCHMENT trademark followed by a hyphen, the suggestive term “document”, and the top-level “.com.” The differences between Respondent’s domain name and Complainant’s trademark do nothing to distinguish the domain name from Complainant’s mark under the Policy. Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent’s <parchment-document.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s PARCHMENT trademark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Ant Small and Micro Financial Services Group Co., Ltd. v. Ant Fin, FA 1759326 (Forum Jan. 2, 2018) (“Respondent’s <antfinancial-investorrelations.com> Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ANT FINANCIAL mark. It incorporates the mark entirely. It adds a hyphen, the descriptive terms “investor relations,” and the “.com” gTLD, but these additions are insufficient to distinguish the Domain name from complainant’s mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”).
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). Since Respondent failed to respond, absent evidence of Policy ¶ 4(c) circumstances Complainant’s prima facie showing acts conclusively.
Respondent lacks both rights and legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant’s trademark 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 the at-issue domain name.
The WHOIS information for <parchment-document.com> shows that “Ge, Xiangchen” is the domain name’s registrant and there is nothing in the record before the Panel that indicates that Respondent is known by <parchment-document.com> or by Complainant’s PARCHMENT trademark. Given the foregoing, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name under 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 uses the <parchment-document.com> domains name to pass itself off as Complainant in connection with a scheme to defraud third-parties. Respondent’s <parchment-document.com> displays a page that passes on fraudulent information concerning education transcripts and misleads universities to believe Complainant sent documents, when it did not. Doing so causes confusion among universities as to whether bogus transcript information was actually sent by Complainant. Such use of Respondent’s confusingly similar <parchment-document.com> domain name is not indicative of a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor of a non-commercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Microsoft Corporation v. Terrence Green / Whois Agent / Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc., FA 1661030 (Forum Apr. 4, 2016) (finding the respondent’s use of the disputed domain names to send fraudulent emails purportedly from agents of complainant to be neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)); see also Am. Int’l Group, Inc. v. Busby, FA 156251 (Forum May 30, 2003) (finding that the respondent attempts to pass itself off as the complainant online, which is blatant unauthorized use of the complainant’s mark and is evidence that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name).
Given the forgoing, Complainant satisfies its initial burden and conclusively demonstrates Respondent’s lack of rights and lack of interests in respect of the at-issue domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Respondent’s <parchment-document.com> domain name was registered and used in bad faith. As discussed below without limitation, bad faith circumstances are present that compel the Panel to conclude that Respondent acted in bad faith pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
As discussed above regarding rights and legitimate interests, Respondent uses the <parchment-document.com> domain name to facilitate a scheme using a webpage addressed by <parchment-document.com> to pass itself off as Complainant in furtherance of defrauding third parties. Respondent’s use of the at-issue domain name to pass itself off as a Complainant in order to deliver fraudulent information to third-parties indicates Respondent’s disruption of Complainant’s business under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and an attempt to attract internet users for commercial gain under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Microsoft Corporation v. Terrence Green / Whois Agent / Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc., FA 1661030 (Forum Apr. 4, 2016) (finding the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain names to send fraudulent emails supported a finding of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)); see also American Cheerleader Media, LLC. v. ilir shoshi / cheer, FA 1592319 (Forum Jan. 20, 2015) (“The Panel here finds that Respondent has engaged in bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) as … Respondent utilizes a logo and stylized font identical to Complainant’s own, as well as Complainant’s copyrighted images and text in an attempt to pass itself off as Complainant.”).
Additionally, Respondent registered the <parchment-document.com> domain name knowing that Complainant had trademark rights in PARCHMENT. Respondent’s prior knowledge is evident from the notoriety of Complainant’s trademark, from the inclusion of the term “document” in the domain name which is suggestive of Complainant’s document centric business, and from Respondent’s use of <parchment-document.com> to perpetrate fraud as discussed elsewhere here in. Respondent’s prior knowledge of Complainant's trademark further shows that Respondent registered and used its <parchment-document.com> domain name in bad faith 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, Spectrum Brands, Inc. v. Guo Li Bo, FA 1760233 (Forum Jan. 5, 2018) (“[T]he fact Respondent registered a domain name that looked identical to the SPECTRUM BRANDS mark and used that as an email address to pass itself off as Complainant shows that Respondent knew of Complainant and its trademark rights at the time of registration.”).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <parchment-document.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist
Dated: October 5, 2021
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page