Mavenir Systems, Inc. v. Amrita joshi
Claim Number: FA2110001967359
Complainant is Mavenir Systems, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Brian Kirkpatrick, Texas, USA. Respondent is Amrita joshi (“Respondent”), India.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <mavenirinc.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.
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 October 1, 2021; the Forum received payment on October 1, 2021.
On October 4, 2021, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <mavenirinc.com> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, LLC 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 5, 2021, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of October 25, 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@mavenirinc.com. Also on October 5, 2021, 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 October 27, 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.
A. Complainant
Complainant, Mavenir Systems, Inc., maintains registration in the MAVENIR mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”).
The at-issue domain name, <mavenirinc.com>, is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s MAVENIR mark because it wholly incorporates Complainant’s MAVENIR mark while adding the term “inc” and the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) to form a domain name.
Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the domain name as Respondent is not commonly known by the <mavenirinc.com> domain name. Respondent is not using the <mavenirinc.com> domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services nor for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use because Respondent uses the <mavenirinc.com> domain name to pose as an employee of Complainant in an attempt to phish for financial payment(s) for phony services.
Respondent registered and uses the <mavenirinc.com> domain name in bad faith because it uses the <mavenirinc.com> domain name to impersonate Complainant in email communications furthering fraud.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant has rights in the MAVENIR trademark.
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 name after Complainant acquired rights in its MAVENIR trademark.
Respondent uses the <mavenirinc.com> domain name to facilitate an email phishing scheme.
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 ownership of a USPTO trademark registration for MAVENIR demonstrates Complainant’s rights in such mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(I). See Microsoft Corp. v. Burkes, FA 652743 (Forum Apr. 17, 2006) (“Complainant has established rights in the MICROSOFT mark through registration of the mark with the USPTO.”).
The at-issue domain name consists of Complainant’s MAVENIR trademark followed by the generic term “inc” with all followed by the top level domain name “.com” to complete the domain name. The differences between the <mavenirinc.com> domain name and Complainant’s MAVENIR trademark are insufficient to distinguish the domain name from Complainant’s trademark for the purposes of the Policy. Therefore, the Panel finds that pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) Respondent’s <mavenirinc.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s MAVENIR trademark. 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.”).
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, Complainant’s prima facie showing acts conclusively.
Respondent lacks both rights and legitimate interests in respect of the confusingly similar <mavenirinc.com> 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. See Emerson Electric Co. v. golden humble / golden globals, FA 1787128 (Forum June 11, 2018) (“lack of evidence in the record to indicate a respondent is authorized to use [the] complainant’s mark may support a finding that [the] respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)”).
The WHOIS information for the at-issue domain name ultimately identifies the domain name’s registrant as “Amrita joshi” and the record before the Panel contains no evidence that otherwise tends to show that Respondent is commonly known by the <mavenirinc.com> domain name. The Panel therefore concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name for the purposes of 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 at-issue domain name to host an email address in support of a phishing scheme. In such scheme, Respondent poses as one of Complainant’s employees via email sent from Respondent’s <mavenirinc.com> domain name. Though such email, Respondent tricks the email’s recipient into believing it is dealing with Complainant. Respondent then deceives the recipient into paying for a training course as a condition of a bogus job offer ostensibly from Complainant. Clearly, Respondent’s duplicitous use of the at-issue domain name supports neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a non-commercial or fair use of the domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Emerson Electric Co. v. Adilcon Rocha, FA 1735949 (Forum July 11, 2017) (finding that respondent’s attempt to pass off as complainant through emails does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services and, as such, respondent lacked rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name); see also, 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)).
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 pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Respondent’s <mavenirinc.com> domain name was registered and used in bad faith. As discussed below without limitation, bad faith circumstances are present which 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 interest, Respondent’s confusingly similar <mavenirinc.com> domain name is used to facilitate an email phishing scheme whereby Respondent impersonates Complainant via deceptive email in furtherance of fraud. Respondent’s use of the confusingly similar <mavenirinc.com> domain name to pass itself off as Complainant and trick third parties into giving up funds under false pretenses disrupts Complainant’s business and demonstrates Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the <mavenirinc.com> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv). See Abbvie, Inc. v. James Bulow, FA 1701075 (Forum Nov. 30, 2016) (“Respondent uses the <abbuie.com> domain name to impersonate Complainant’s CEO. Such use is undeniably disruptive to Complainant’s business and demonstrates bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii), and/or Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)”).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <mavenirinc.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist
Dated: October 28, 2021
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page