PayPal, Inc. v. Man lidy
Claim Number: FA2301002027180
Complainant is PayPal, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Karen A. Webb of Fenwick & West LLP, California, USA. Respondent is Man lidy (“Respondent”), Singapore.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <paypalusd.com>, registered with GoDaddy.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.
Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on January 11, 2023; Forum received payment on January 11, 2023.
On January 12, 2023, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <paypalusd.com> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.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 January 17, 2023, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 6, 2023 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@paypalusd.com. Also on January 17, 2023, 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 February 7, 2023, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Paul M. DeCicco 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 contends as follows:
Complainant was founded in 1998 and is a prominent global online payment company offering its worldwide users a way to send and receive payments online.
Complainant has rights in the PAYPAL mark through Complainant’s registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) as well as multiple registrations around the world.
Respondent’s <paypalusd.com> domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s PAYPAL mark as it merely adds the generic abbreviation “usd” and the “.com” generic top-level-domain name (“gTLD”).
Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the <paypalusd.com> domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name, nor has Respondent been authorized by Complainant to use the PAYPAL mark. Respondent has not used the at-issue domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services as Respondent’s domain name results in a website connected with adult-oriented material and pay-per-click advertisements.
Respondent registered and used the <paypalusd.com> domain name in bad faith. Respondent has displayed a pattern of bad faith use and registration of domain names. Additionally, Respondent used the disputed domain name to resolve to a website that contains sponsored links to third party commercial websites and in connection to adult-oriented images. Finally, Respondent’s actual knowledge of the mark is evidenced by Respondent using Complainant’s mark in its entirety.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant has trademark rights in the PAYPAL mark.
Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and had not been authorized to use Complainant’s trademark in any capacity.
Respondent registered the at‑issue domain name after Complainant acquired rights in the PAYPAL trademark.
Respondent used the at-issue domain name to address webpages that offers adult content and pay-per-click advertising.
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 at-issue domain name is identical to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.
Complainant shows that it registered the PAYPAL mark with multiple government agencies worldwide including the USPTO. Complainant’s registration for PAYPAL with at least one recognized trademark registrar is conclusive evidence of its rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Vanguard Trademark Holdings USA LLC v. Wang Liqun, FA 1625332 (Forum July 17, 2015) (finding, “Registration of a mark with a governmental authority (or, in this case, multiple governmental authorities) is sufficient to establish rights in the mark for purposes of Policy ¶4(a)(i)”).
Respondent’s <paypalusd.com> domain name contains Complainant’s entire PAYPAL trademark followed by the suggestive term “usd” and with all followed by the “.com” top-level domain name. The differences between Complainant’s PAYPAL trademark and Respondent’s at-issue domain name fail to distinguish the domain name from the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent’s <paypalusd.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s PAYPAL trademark. See Microsoft Corporation v. Thong Tran Thanh, FA 1653187 (Forum Jan. 21, 2016) (determining that confusing similarity exist where [a disputed domain name] contains Complainant’s entire mark and differs only by the addition of a generic or descriptive phrase and top-level domain, the differences between the domain name and its contained trademark are insufficient to differentiate one from the other for the purposes of the Policy.).
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. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006). Since Respondent failed to respond, Complainant’s prima facie showing acts conclusively.
Respondent lacks both rights and legitimate interests in respect of the <paypalusd.com> domain name. Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant’s trademark in any capacity and, as discussed below, there are no Policy ¶ 4(c) circumstances from which the Panel might find that Respondent has rights or interests in respect of the at‑issue domain name.
The WHOIS information for the at-issue domain name identifies the registrant of <paypalusd.com> as “Man lidy” and the record before the Panel contains no evidence that otherwise tends to show that Respondent is commonly known by the <paypalusd.com> domain name. The Panel therefore concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Coppertown Drive-Thru Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089 (Forum July 17, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <coppertown.com> domain name where there was no evidence in the record, including the WHOIS information, suggesting that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name).
Respondent used the at-issue domain name to address webpages featuring adult-oriented material and/or pay-per-click advertisements. Respondent’s use of the <paypalusd.com> in this manner constitutes neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a non-commercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Altria Group, Inc. and Altria Group Distribution Company v. xiazihong, FA1732665 (Forum July 7, 2017) (holding that “[u]se of a domain name to display adult-oriented images is not considered a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under the Policy.”); see also, Insomniac Holdings, LLC v. Mark Daniels, FA 1735969 (Forum July 15, 2017) (”Respondent’s use of <edcorlando.xyz> also does not qualify as a bona fide offering… the <edcorlando.xyz> domain name resolves to a site containing pay-per-click hyperlinks and advertisements… Since these kinds of advertisements generate revenue for the holder of a domain name, they cannot be noncommercial; further, they do not qualify as a bona fide offering.”).
Given the forgoing, Complainant satisfies its initial burden and demonstrates Respondent’s lack of rights and lack of legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
The at-issue domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. As discussed below without limitation, there is evidence from which the Panel may conclude that Respondent acted in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
First, Complainant shows that Respondent, at times using aliases, has suffered multiple adverse UDRP decisions as a respondent in previous UDRP disputes. Respondent’s prior cybersquatting demonstrates a pattern of bad faith domain name registration and is evidence of Respondent’s bad faith in the instant case under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). See Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Bin g Glu, FA 1036129 (Forum Sept. 2, 2007) (holding prior UDRP proceedings were sufficient evidence of a pattern of bad faith registrations); see also, Webster Financial Corporation and Webster Bank, National Association v. Above.com Domain Privacy, FA1209001464477 (Forum Nov. 30, 2012) (finding where the record reflected that the respondent had been a respondent in other UDRP proceedings in which it was ordered to transfer disputed domain names to various complainants established a pattern of bad faith registration and use of domain names and stood as evidence of bad faith in the registration and use of domain names under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii)).
Next, Respondent has used the at-issue domain name to address a webpage directed to adult content presumptively for commercial gain. Such use of the domain name is disruptive to Complainant’s business and demonstrates Respondent’s bad faith regarding the at-issue domain name per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See PopSockets LLC v. san mao, FA 1740903 (Forum Aug. 27, 2017) (finding disruption of a complainant’s business which was not directly commercial competitive behavior was nonetheless sufficient to establish bad faith registration and use per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)); see also Google Inc. v. Bassano, FA 232958 (Forum Mar. 8, 2004) (holding that the respondent’s use of the <googlesex.info> domain name to intentionally attract Internet users to a website featuring adult-oriented content constituted bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)); see also H-D U.S.A., LLC v. Nobuyoshi Tanaka / Personal, FA1312001534740 (Forum Jan. 31, 2014) (“Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent is acting in bad faith because Respondent is using the <harley-davidsonsales.com> domain name to tarnish Complainant’s HARLEY-DAVIDSON mark, as the Panel also finds that the content displayed on the resolving website constitutes adult-oriented content.”).
Additionally, Respondent used at-issue domain name to address webpages containing pay-per-click advertisement. Such use the of the confusingly similar <paypalusd.com> domain name is further evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Danbyg Ejendomme A/S v. lb Hansen / guerciotti, FA1504001613867 (Forum June 2, 2015) (finding that the respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the disputed domain name resolved to a website that offered both competing hyperlinks and hyperlinks unrelated to the complainant’s business).
Moreover, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the PAYPAL mark when it registered <paypalusd.com> as a domain name. Respondent’s actual knowledge is evident from the notoriety of Complainant’s PAYPAL trademark and from Respondent’s incorporation of the term “usd” (United States dollars), which suggests Complainant’s online-payment business, into the at-issue confusingly similar domain name. Respondent’s registration and use of the confusingly similar domain name with knowledge of Complainant’s trademark rights in PAYPAL further demonstrates Respondent’s bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name); 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).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <paypalusd.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist
Dated: February 8, 2023
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page