Garrett Transportation I Inc. v. LIUQINGRU
Claim Number: FA2211002022072
Complainant is Garrett Transportation I Inc. ("Complainant"), United States, represented by Lauren Beth Emerson of Leason Ellis LLP, United States. Respondent is LIUQINGRU ("Respondent"), China.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <garrettmotion.xyz>, registered with Sav.com, 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.
David E. Sorkin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on November 29, 2022; Forum received payment on November 29, 2022.
On November 30, 2022, Sav.com, LLC confirmed by email to Forum that the <garrettmotion.xyz> domain name is registered with Sav.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Sav.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Sav.com, 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 December 1, 2022, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of December 21, 2022 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via email to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@garrettmotion.xyz. Also on December 1, 2022, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the email 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 22, 2022, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed David E. Sorkin 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 is a developer of various technologies in the global transportation industry. Its parent entity is publicly traded on the New York Stock Exchange as Garrett Motion Inc. Complainant and its predecessors have been in the transportation business since the 1930s. The business was acquired by Honeywell International Inc. and was spun off into an independent entity in 2018, but has been known by the name and mark GARRETT throughout its history. Complainant states that in 2017 Honeywell's transportation system business achieved over $3 billion in sales, the vast majority of which is attributable to goods and services offered under the GARRETT brand name. Complainant owns various trademark registrations for GARRETT and related marks in the United States and other jurisdictions, and claims that the GARRETT mark has become famous as a result of longstanding use. Complainant uses the domain name <garrettmotion.com> in connection with its business.
Respondent registered the disputed domain name <garrettmotion.xyz> via a privacy registration service in February 2022. It is being used to redirect users to a domain name marketplace that offers the domain name for sale at a price of $1,450. Complainant states that Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name, has no relationship with Complainant, and is not authorized to use Complainant's mark.
Complainant contends on the above grounds that the disputed domain name <garrettmotion.xyz> is confusingly similar to its GARRETT mark; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
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 Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, § 4.3 (3d ed. 2017), available at http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (dismissing complaint where complainant failed to "produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations").
The disputed domain name <garrettmotion.xyz> incorporates Complainant's registered GARRETT trademark, adding the generic term "motion" and the ".xyz" top-level domain. These additions do not substantially diminish the similarity between the domain name and Complainant's mark. See, e.g., Garrett Transportation I Inc. v. 393965333, FA 1889404 (Forum Apr. 23, 2020) (finding <garrettmotion.global> confusingly similar to GARRETT); Garrett Transportation I Inc. v. Jakub Winkler, FA 1833506 (Forum Apr. 15, 2019) (finding <garrett-motion.com> confusingly similar to GARRETT); Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Co. v. Arockias Inc, FA 1835602 (Forum Apr. 17, 2019) (finding <wawanesa.xyz> identical to WAWANESA). The Panel considers the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights.
Under the Policy, the Complainant must first make a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and then the burden shifts to the Respondent to come forward with concrete evidence of such rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Productions, Inc. v. Entertainment Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006).
The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's registered mark without authorization, and its sole apparent use has been to redirect users to a website at which the domain name is offered for sale. Such use does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. See, e.g., Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Co. v. Arockias Inc, supra (finding lack of rights or interests in similar circumstances).
Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name, and Respondent has failed to come forward with any evidence of such rights or interests. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has sustained its burden of proving that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
Finally, Complainant must show that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Under paragraph 4(b)(i) of the Policy, bad faith may be shown by evidence that a domain name was acquired "primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of [Respondent's] documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name."
Respondent used a privacy registration service to register a name incorporating Complainant's registered mark and corresponding to the name of Complainant’s parent corporation. Respondent appears to be using the domain name for the sole purpose of redirecting users to a website at which the domain name is offered for sale at a price far exceeding Respondent's out-of-pocket costs. Under the circumstances, the Panel considers it reasonable to infer that Respondent was at all relevant times aware of Complainant and its mark, and that Respondent registered the disputed domain name with the intent of exploiting its correspondence to Complainant's name and mark. See, e.g., Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Co. v. Arockias Inc, supra (finding bad faith registration and use in similar circumstances). The Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
Having considered the three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <garrettmotion.xyz> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
David E. Sorkin, Panelist
Dated: December 23, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page