Charter Communications Holding Company, LLC v. AGOSTINO Marino / 24SEVEN TRADING INC
Claim Number: FA2209002013556
Complainant is Charter Communications Holding Company, LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Julie Kent of Holland & Hart LLP, US. Respondent is AGOSTINO Marino / 24SEVEN TRADING INC (“Respondent”), US.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <charter-sso.com>, registered with NameCheap, Inc..
The undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his or her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Richard Hill as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on September 26, 2022; Forum received payment on September 26, 2022.
On September 26, 2022, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <charter-sso.com> 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 September 28, 2022, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of October 18, 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@charter-sso.com. Also on September 28, 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, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On October 25, 2022 pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Richard Hill as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that 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, 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 states that it is a telecommunications company providing services to over 32 million customers in the United States. With 96,000 employees and service in 41 states, Complainant considers itself America’s fastest growing TV, internet, and voice company. Since at least as early as 1994, Complainant has used the CHARTER mark in connection with cable television and related services. Complainant claims rights in the CHARTER mark through its registration with multiple trademark agencies, including in United States in 2011.
Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its CHARTER mark as it incorporates the mark in whole and merely adds the generic/descriptive term “sso” (which stands for “single sign on”), a hyphen, and the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”). Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
According to Complainant, Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Complainant authorized or licensed to Respondent any rights in the CHARTER mark. Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services, nor for any legitimate non-commercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent uses Complainant’s mark in the disputed domain name in order to impersonate Complainant in furtherance of a phishing scheme. Specifically, the resolving website attempts to impersonate Complainant by displaying the CHARTER mark and copying the content from Complainant’s legitimate intranet login pages located on Complainant’s <login.sso.charter.com> sub-domains. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent uses the goodwill associated with Complainant’s CHARTER mark in the disputed domain name in order to attract users in bad faith. Respondent uses the disputed domain name in order to pass off as Complainant in furtherance of a phishing scheme. Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual and/or constructive knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the CHARTER mark. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant owns the mark CHARTER and uses it to provide telecommunication services.
Complainant’s right in its mark date back to at least 2011.
The disputed domain name was registered in 2022.
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark.
Respondent uses the disputed domain name to impersonate Complainant in furtherance of a 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 disputed domain name incorporates Complainant’s CHARTER mark in its entirety, and merely adds a hyphen, the generic/descriptive term “sso” (which states for “single sign on”), along with the “.com” gTLD. Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), fully incorporating a mark in its entirety and adding a generic or descriptive term, or random letters, fails sufficiently to distinguish a domain name from a registered mark. See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) (“Where a relevant trademark is recognisable 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 Brooks Sports, Inc. v. chen jiajin, FA 101001930406 (Forum March 30, 2021) (finding that “adding random letters and a gTLD…fails to sufficiently distinguish a disputed domain name); see also Bittrex, Inc. v. Sergey Valerievich Kireev / Kireev, FA 1784651 (Forum June 5, 2018) (holding that the domain name consists of the Complainant’s mark and adds “the letters ‘btc’ and the gTLD .com which do not distinguish the Domain Name from Complainant’s mark.”). Moreover, the addition of a hyphen is irrelevant when determining the confusing similarity pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Health Devices Corp. v. Aspen S T C, FA 158254 (Forum July 1, 2003) (“[T]he addition of punctuation marks such as hyphens is irrelevant in the determination of confusing similarity pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”). Further, the addition of the “.com” gTLD is irrelevant when determining whether a disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a protected mark. See Contrywide Fin. Corp. v. Johnson & Sons Sys., FA 1073019 (Forum Oct. 24, 2007) (holding that the addition of the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com” was irrelevant). Therefore the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name: under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), WHOIS information may be used to determine that a respondent is not commonly known by a disputed domain name. See M. Shanken Commc’ns v. WORLDTRAVELERSONLINE.COM , FA 740335 (Forum Aug. 3, 2006) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <cigaraficionada.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) based on the WHOIS information and other evidence in the record). Here, the WHOIS information of record shows that the registrant of the disputed domain name is “AGOSTINO Marino / 24SEVEN TRADING INC”. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
Respondent uses the disputed domain name to impersonate Complainant in furtherance of a phishing scheme. Specifically, the resolving website attempts to impersonate Complainant by displaying the CHARTER mark and copying the content from Complainant’s legitimate intranet login pages located on Complainant’s <login.sso.charter.com> sub-domains. This is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate non-commercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii). See 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); see also Juno Online Servs., Inc. v. Iza, FA 245960 (Forum May 3, 2004) (defining “phishing” as “the use of e-mails, pop-ups or other methods to trick Internet users into revealing credit card numbers, passwords, social security numbers and other personal information that may be used for fraudulent purposes”); see also Cubist Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Gregory Stea, FA1403001550388 (Forum May 5, 2014) (“The domain name also resolved to a website similar to Complainant's website. The Panel found that such actions precluded a bona fide offer or fair use.”). Therefore the Panel finds that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use within the meaning of Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). And the Panel finds that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Respondent (who did not reply to Complainant’s contentions) has not presented any plausible explanation for its use of Complainant’s mark. In accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel shall draw such inferences from Respondent’s failure to reply as it considers appropriate. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent did not have a legitimate use in mind when registering the disputed domain name.
Indeed, as already noted, Respondent uses the disputed domain name to impersonate Complainant in furtherance of a phishing scheme. This is evidence of bad faith registration and use under the Policy. See Indeed, Inc. v. Zhiteng Sun, FA 1751940 (Forum Nov. 1, 2017) (finding that the respondent's use of <lndeed.net> to misrepresent itself as the complainant by imitating the complainant’s website design supported a finding of bad faith); see also Morgan Stanley v. Bruce Pu, FA 1764120 (Forum Feb. 2, 2018) (“[T]he screenshot of the resolving webpage allows users to input their name and email address, which Complainant claims Respondent uses that to fraudulently phish for information. Thus, the Panel agrees that Respondent phishes for information and finds that Respondent does so in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”); see also Capital One Financial Corporation and Capital One Bank v. Austin Howel, FA 289304 (Forum Aug. 11, 2004) (finding bad faith where respondent used complainant’s mark to fraudulently induce transfer of credit and personal identification information). Thus the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Further, Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s mark: the resolving website displays Complainant’s mark and material copied from Complainant’s legitimate website. While constructive notice is insufficient to demonstrate bad faith, actual knowledge of a complainant’s rights in a mark prior to registration may be evidence of bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Custom Modular Direct LLC v. Custom Modular Homes Inc., FA 1140580 (Forum Apr. 8, 2008) (“There is no place for constructive notice under the Policy.”); see also Orbitz Worldwide, LLC v. Domain Librarian, FA 1535826 (Forum Feb. 6, 2014) (“The Panel notes that although the UDRP does not recognize ‘constructive notice’ as sufficient grounds for finding Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) bad faith, the Panel here finds actual knowledge through the name used for the domain and the use made of it.”); see also Univision Comm'cns Inc. v. Norte, FA 1000079 (Forum Aug. 16, 2007) (rejecting the respondent's contention that it did not register the disputed domain name in bad faith since the panel found that the respondent had knowledge of the complainant's rights in the UNIVISION mark when registering the disputed domain name). The Panel finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the mark prior to Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name and that this constitutes bad faith under 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 <charter-sso.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Richard Hill, Panelist
Dated: October 26, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page