Home Box Office, Inc. v. jamespeter
Claim Number: FA2204001991913
Complainant is Home Box Office, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by S. Annie Allison, New York, USA. Respondent is jamespeter (“Respondent”), India.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <hbomax-comtvsignin.com>, registered with Eranet International Limited.
PANEL
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.
Alan L. Limbury, as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on April 11, 2022. The Forum received payment on April 11, 2022.
On April 13, 2022, Eranet International Limited confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <hbomax-comtvsignin.com> domain name is registered with Eranet International Limited and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Eranet International Limited has verified that Respondent is bound by the Eranet International Limited 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 April 18, 2022, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of May 9, 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@hbomax-comtvsignin.com. Also on April 18, 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 May 16, 2022, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Alan L. Limbury 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 operates in the broadcasting, media, and entertainment industry. Complainant has rights in the HBO MAX mark through its registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Customers who subscribe to the HBO MAX streaming service have the option to sign in to their accounts directly from certain TVs and other devices by entering computer-generated codes (“Sign-In Codes”) through Complainant’s sign-in website located at “www.hbomax.com/tv-sign-in” (the “HBO MAX Sign-In Website”).
Respondent’s <hbomax-comtvsignin.com> domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s HBO MAX mark.
Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <hbomax-comtvsignin.com> domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name, nor has Complainant authorized or licensed Respondent to use its HBO MAX mark in the domain name. Respondent does not use the domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent has used the domain name to pass itself off as Complainant and typosquat in order improperly to collect personal information from Internet users. Customers who mistakenly arrived at Respondent’s website were encouraged to enter their Sign-In Codes under the guise that they were completing the TV sign-in process for their HBO MAX accounts. However, instead of completing the remote sign-in process, the website advised customers of an “error” and instructed them to call a provided phone number to complete the sign-in process via phone activation. Consumers calling the provided number were told they were talking with HBO MAX technical support and, on information and belief, were asked to provide their HBO MAX account details and confidential personal information.
Respondent registered and uses the <hbomax-comtvsignin.com> domain name in bad faith. Respondent registered the domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s HBO MAX mark. Respondent registered and has used the domain name primarily to disrupt Complainant’s business. The domain name impersonates Complainant and its HBO MAX Sign-in Website in order to collect confidential personal information from customers. Respondent takes advantage of common typographical errors to typosquat and siphon off Internet users searching for Complainant. While the domain name is currently inactive, Respondent could resume its unauthorized activities at any time.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant has established all the elements entitling it to relief.
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 has shown that it has rights in the HBO MAX mark through registration with the USPTO (Reg. No. 6,201,484, registered November 17, 2020). The Panel finds Respondent’s <hbomax-comtvsignin.com> domain name to be confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark as it incorporates the mark and adds a hyphen and the generic terms “Com”, “TV” and “Sign In”, which are insufficient to distinguish the domain name from the mark, as well as the non-distinctive generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com”, which may be ignored.
Complainant has established this element.
(i) before any notice to Respondent of the dispute, the use by Respondent of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or
(ii) Respondent (as an individual, business or other organization) has been commonly known by the domain name, even if Respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
(iii) Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert customers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.
The <hbomax-comtvsignin.com> domain name was registered on May 24, 2021. It previously resolved to a website displaying Complainant’s genuine “hbomax.com/tv-sign-in” web address and having the look and feel of Complainant’s HBO MAX Sign-In Website. The domain name is not presently active.
These circumstances, together with Complainant’s assertions, are sufficient to constitute a prima facie showing of absence of rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name on the part of Respondent. The evidentiary burden therefore shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the <hbomax-comtvsignin.com> domain name. See JUUL Labs, Inc. v. Dryx Emerson / KMF Events LTD, FA1906001849706 (Forum July 17, 2019).
Respondent has made no attempt to do so.
The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name.
Complainant has established this element.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out four illustrative circumstances, which, though not exclusive, shall be evidence of the registration and use of the domain name in bad faith for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, including:
(iii) Respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) by using the domain name, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on its website or location.
The circumstances set out above in relation to the second element satisfy the Panel that Respondent was aware of Complainant’s HBO MAX mark and its “hbomax.com/tv-sign-in” web address when Respondent registered the <hbomax-comtvsignin.com> domain name and that Respondent did so in bad faith primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of Complainant. This demonstrates registration and use in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).
The Panel is also satisfied that Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark as to the source of Respondent’s website.
This demonstrates registration and use in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)
Complainant has established this element.
DECISION
Complainant having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <hbomax-comtvsignin.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Alan L. Limbury, Panelist
Dated: May 17, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page