CommScope, Inc. of North Carolina v. Gold Hunt
Claim Number: FA2204001994323
Complainant is CommScope, Inc. of North Carolina (“Complainant”), represented by William Schultz of Merchant & Gould, P.C., Minnesota, USA. Respondent is Gold Hunt (“Respondent”), Germany.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <commscope.cam>, registered with NameCheap, Inc.
The undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on April 28, 2022; the Forum received payment on April 28, 2022.
On April 28, 2022, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <commscope.cam> 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 ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On May 2, 2022, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of May 23, 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@commscope.cam. Also on May 2, 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 31, 2022, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Sandra J. Franklin 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
1. Respondent’s <commscope.cam> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s COMMSCOPE mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <commscope.cam> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and uses the <commscope.cam> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent did not file a Response.
Complainant provides communication products and services and holds a registration for the COMMSCOPE mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 1,865,198, registered Nov. 29, 1994).
Respondent registered the <commscope.cam> domain name on April 23, 2022, and uses it only to forward users to Complainant’s website.
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”).
Respondent’s <commscope.cam> domain name uses Complainant’s COMMSCOPE mark and simply adds a gTLD. See Marquette Golf Club v. Al Perkins, FA 1738263 (Forum July 27, 2017) (“When a respondent’s domain name incorporates a mark in its entirety and merely adds a generic top-level domain (gTLD), “.com”, then the Panel may find that the disputed domain name is identical to Complainant’s mark.”). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent’s domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s COMMSCOPE mark.
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Once Complainant makes a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), 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 that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in <commscope.cam>, as Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name. Complainant has not authorized or licensed Respondent to use its COMMSCOPE mark. The WHOIS information identifies Respondent as “Gold Hunt.” Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and thus has no rights under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Deutsche Lufthansa AG v. Mohamed elkassaby, FA 1801815 (Forum Sep. 17, 2018) (“The WHOIS lists “Mohamed elkassaby” as registrant of record. Coupled with Complainant’s unrebutted assertions as to absence of any affiliation between the parties, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name in accordance with Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).”)
Complainant also argues that
Respondent is not using the <commscope.cam> domain name for a bona
fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair
use. Under Policy
¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii), failure to make
active use of the disputed domain name’s resolving website does not constitute
a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial
or fair use. See Activision Blizzard, Inc. / Activision Publishing,
Inc. / Blizzard Entertainment, Inc. v. Cimpress Schweiz GmbH, FA 1737429 (Forum Aug. 3, 2017)
(“Complainant insists that Respondent has made no demonstrable preparations to
use the disputed domain name. When Respondent is not using the disputed domain
name in connection with an active website, the Panel may find that Respondent
is not using the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods
or services… As Respondent has not provided a response to this action,
Respondent has failed to meet its burden regarding proof of any rights or
legitimate interest in the disputed domain.”) Complainant provides screenshots
of the disputed domain name’s resolving website, which features no content. The
Panel finds that this is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or
a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, and thus
Respondent has no rights under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).
The Panel notes that the resolving website redirects users to Complainant’s website, also not a bona fide offering of goods and services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, further evidence that Respondent lacks rights under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii). See Direct Line Ins. plc v. Low-cost-domain, FA 1337658 (Forum Sept. 8, 2010) (“The Panel finds that using Complainant’s mark in a domain name over which Complainant has no control, even if the domain name redirects to Complainant’s actual site, is not consistent with the requirements of Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or ¶ 4(c)(iii) . . .”).
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Complainant further argues that Respondent registered the <commscope.cam> domain name with bad faith actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the COMMSCOPE mark. Since Respondent uses the disputed domain name to redirect to Complainant’s website, the Panel agrees and finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the mark when it registered the disputed domain name, in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See AutoZone Parts, Inc. v. Ken Belden, FA 1815011 (Forum Dec. 24, 2018) (“Complainant contends that Respondent’s knowledge can be presumed in light of the substantial fame and notoriety of the AUTOZONE mark, as well as the fact that Complainant is the largest retailer in the field. The Panel here finds that Respondent did have actual knowledge of Complainant’s mark, demonstrating bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”)
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <commscope.cam> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist
Dated: May 31, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page