Mediacom Communications Corporation v. Mujahid Bakht / Atlas Amazon, LLC.
Claim Number: FA2211002019086
Complainant is Mediacom Communications Corporation (“Complainant”), represented by Robert M. Wasnofski,Jr. of Dentons US LLP, Illinois. Respondent is Mujahid Bakht / Atlas Amazon, LLC. (“Respondent”), New York.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <mediacompaybill.com>, (‘the Domain Name’) registered with Google LLC.
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.
Dawn Osborne as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on November 4, 2022; Forum received payment on November 4, 2022.
On Nov 04, 2022, Google LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <mediacompaybill.com> Domain Name is registered with Google LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Google LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Google 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 November 8, 2022, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of November 28, 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@mediacompaybill.com. Also on November 8, 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 December 2, 2022 pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Dawn Osborne 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
The Complainant is the owner of the mark MEDIACOM, registered, inter alia, in the USA for cable transmission services with first use recorded as 1995.
The addition of the generic words ‘pay’ and ‘bill’ and the gTLD .com do not distinguish the Domain Name from the Complainant’s mark.
Respondent is not commonly known by or authorised by the Complainant to use the Domain Name.
The Domain Name registered in 2022 is not being used. The passive holding of a domain name containing a well known mark does not show a legitimate use or bona fide offering of goods and services. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name.
Intention to capitalize on a well known mark is bad faith registration and use. Passive holding of a domain name containing a well known mark is bad faith registration and use per se.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
The Complainant is the owner of the mark MEDIACOM, registered, inter alia, in the USA for cable transmission services with first use recorded as 1995.
The Domain Name registered in 2022 has not been used.
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 Domain Name in this Complaint combines the Complainant’s MEDIACOM mark (registered in the USA for cable transmission services with first use recorded as 1995), the generic words ‘pay’ and ‘bill’ and the gTLD .com. MEDIACOM is well known.
The addition of the generic words ‘pay’ and/or ‘bill’ does not prevent confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the Complainant’s mark. See Abbott Laboratories v Miles White, FA 1646590 (Forum Dec 10, 2015) (holding that the addition of generic terms do not adequately distinguish a disputed domain name from complainant’s mark under Policy 4 (a) (i). )
The gTLD .com does not serve to distinguish the Domain Name from the Complainant’s mark. See Red Hat Inc v Haecke FA 726010 (Forum July 24, 2006) (concluding that the redhat.org domain name is identical to the complainant's red hat mark because the mere addition of the gTLD was insufficient to differentiate the disputed domain name from the mark).
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a mark in which the Complainant has rights for the purpose of the Policy.
As such the Panel holds that Paragraph 4 (a) (i) of the Policy has been satisfied.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant has not authorised the use of its mark. There is no evidence or reason to suggest the Respondent is, in fact, commonly known by the Domain Name. See Alaska Air Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines v. Song Bin, FA1408001574905 (Forum September 17, 2014) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name as demonstrated by the WHOIS information and based on the fact that the complainant had not licensed or authorized the respondent to use its ALASKA AIRLINES mark).
There has been no use of the Domain Name. See Hewlett-Packard Co. v Shemesh, FA 434145 (Forum April 20, 2005)(Inactive use is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy 4 ( c ) (i). )
The Respondent has not answered this Complaint or explained why it should be allowed to register a domain name containing the Complainant’s mark.
As such the Panelist finds that the Respondent does not have rights or a legitimate interest in the Domain Name and that the Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
The overriding objective of the Policy is to curb the abusive registration of domain names in circumstances where the registrant seeks to profit from or exploit the trade mark of another. The Respondent is passively holding the Domain Name containing the Complainant’s well known mark. Passive holding of a domain name containing a well known mark without legitimate excuse is bad faith registration and use. See Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows, D2000-0003 (WIPO Feb. 18, 2000).
As such, the Panel holds that the Complainant has made out its case that the Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith and has satisfied the third limb of the Policy.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <mediacompaybill.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Dawn Osborne, Panelist
Dated: December 7, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page