Charter Communications Holding Company, LLC v. Hasan Iqbal
Claim Number: FA2203001989061
Complainant is Charter Communications Holding Company, LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Lian Ernette of Holland & Hart LLP, Colorado, USA. Respondent is Hasan Iqbal (“Respondent”), Bangladesh.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <panoramacharter.org>, registered with Porkbun 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.
Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on March 21, 2022; the Forum received payment on March 21, 2022.
On March 22, 2022, Porkbun LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <panoramacharter.org> domain name is registered with Porkbun LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Porkbun LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Porkbun 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 March 23, 2022, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 12, 2022 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@panoramacharter.org. Also on March 23, 2022, 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 18, 2022, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. 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
i) Complainant, Charter Communications Holding Company, LLC, is a telecommunications company providing services to over 26 million customers in the United States under its CHARTER mark. Complainant asserts rights in the CHARTER mark through its registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s CHARTER mark because it incorporates Complainant’s CHARTER mark while adding the term “panorama” and the “.org” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) to form a domain name.
ii) Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name because Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name nor has Respondent been authorized to use Complainant’s CHARTER mark. Complainant is not using the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services nor for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use because Respondent’s website confuses users as to its association with Complainant.
iii) Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith because Respondent’s website falsely claims association with Complainant in a way that directly competes with Complainant’s business. Respondent acted with actual or constructive knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the CHARTER mark.
B. Respondent
Respondent did not submit a response.
1. The disputed domain name was registered on August 9, 2021.
2. Complainant has established right in the CHARTER mark through its registration with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 3,899,216 – registered on January 4, 2011).
3. Respondent’s website falsely claims association with Complainant in a way that directly competes with Complainant’s business.
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”).
Complainant asserts rights in the CHARTER mark with the USPTO. Registration of a mark with the USPTO is sufficient to establish rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Nintendo of America Inc. v. lin amy, FA 1818485 (Forum Dec. 24, 2018) ("Complainant’s ownership a USPTO trademark registration for the NINTENDO mark evidences Complainant’s rights in such mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”). Complainant provides copies of its registration for the CHARTER mark with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 3,899,216 – registered on January 4, 2011). Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the CHARTER mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant argues that the <panoramacharter.org> domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s CHARTER mark because it incorporates Complainant’s mark while adding the term “panorama” and the “.org” gTLD to form a domain name. A domain name may still be found to be identical or confusingly similar to a complainant’s mark, under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), despite the addition of terms and a gTLD. 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.”); see also Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association v. Shi Lei aka Shilei, FA 1784643 (Forum June 18, 2018) (“A TLD (whether a gTLD, sTLD or ccTLD) is disregarded under a Policy ¶4(a)(i) analysis because domain name syntax requires TLDs.”). Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)); see also Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) (“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”).
Complainant argues Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name because Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name nor has Respondent been authorized to use Complainant’s CHARTER mark. Where a respondent does not provide evidence to the contrary, evidence of a respondent not being commonly known by a domain name, under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), may be found where the identifying WHOIS information is unrelated to a domain name and where a respondent lacks authorization to use a complainant’s mark. See SPTC, Inc. and Sotheby’s v. Tony Yeh shiun, FA 1810835 (Forum Nov. 13, 2018) (finding no rights or legitimate interests in the <sothebys.email> domain name where the WHOIS identified Respondent as “Tony Yeh shiun,” Complainant never authorized or permitted Respondent to use the SOTHEBY’S mark, and Respondent failed to submit a response.). Identifying WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the registrant as ”Hasan Iqbal”. Complainant asserts that it has not given Respondent permission to use the CHARTER mark. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
Complainant argues Respondent is not using the disputed 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 domain to confuse users as to the association between Complainant and the domain name. Use of a domain name that misleads users into believing an association between a complainant and a domain may be evidence of a domain name not being used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services nor for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii). See Ripple Labs Inc. v. NGYEN NGOC PHUONG THAO, FA 1741737 (Forum Aug. 21, 2017) (“Respondent uses the [disputed] domain name to divert Internet users to Respondent’s website… confusing them into believing that some sort of affiliation exists between it and Complainant… [which] is 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).”). Complainant provides screenshots of the resolving website making use of Complainant’s CHARTER mark and asks users to “Access Panorama Charter Spectrum official portal.” Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services nor for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii).
The Panel finds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case that arises from the considerations above. All of these matters go to make out the prima facie case against Respondent. As Respondent has not filed a Response or attempted by any other means to rebut the prima facie case against it, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Complainant argues Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith because Respondent claims affiliation with Complainant through the domain name to trade upon the goodwill associated with the mark. A respondent may be found to have registered and used a domain name in bad faith, under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv), where a respondent trades upon the goodwill of a complainant. See Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Bonds, FA 873143 (Forum Feb. 16, 2007) (“The Panel finds such use to constitute bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv), because [r]espondent is taking advantage of the confusing similarity between the <metropolitanlife.us> domain name and Complainant’s METLIFE mark in order to profit from the goodwill associated with the mark.”); see also Fitness International, LLC v. ALISTAIR SWODECK / VICTOR AND MURRAY, FA1506001623644 (Forum July 9, 2015) (“Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to operate a website that purports to offer health club related services such as fitness experts, fitness models, fitness venues, exercise programs, and personal training, all of which are the exact services offered by Complainant. Doing so causes customer confusion, disrupts Complainant’s business, and demonstrates Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).”). Complainant states that Respondent’s website is purporting to be an informational site intended to confuse users into believing that the website is licensed or affiliated with Complainant. Complainant states that this use is disruptive to Complainant’s own business. Therefore, the Panel agrees and finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (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 <panoramacharter.org> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq., Panelist
Dated: April 22, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page