Come and See Foundation, Inc. v. Sharon Rhodes
Claim Number: FA2301002028321
Complainant is Come and See Foundation, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Anthony J. Biller of Envisage Law, North Carolina. Respondent is Sharon Rhodes (“Respondent”), Florida.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <thechosenapp.org>, registered with NameCheap, Inc.
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.
Richard Hill as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on January 20, 2023; Forum received payment on January 20, 2023.
On January 20, 2023, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <thechosenapp.org> 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 January 23, 2023, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 13, 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@thechosenapp.org. Also on January 23, 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 20, 2023, 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 markets THE CHOSEN, an American religious historical drama series that focuses on the life and ministry of Jesus of Nazareth. The series premiered on December 24, 2017, via Internet streaming. On April 21, 2019, Easter Sunday, Complainant’s predecessor in interest released season one of the series on a dedicated THE CHOSEN app, websites, and TV networks and streaming platforms including VidAngel, Amazon Prime Video, Peacock, BYUtv, and Netflix. As of January 3, 2023, Complainant has 1.86 million subscribers to THE CHOSEN YouTube Channel. THE CHOSEN Season 3 Official Trailer has been viewed 2,966,995 times. Each episode has hundreds of thousands of views within weeks of the episode posting. THE CHOSEN is also on Facebook with 2,682,961 followers. Approximately 2.7 million people watch THE CHOSEN via Facebook and approximately 25 million people access THE CHOSEN content via Facebook each month. THE CHOSEN also has a presence on Twitter with 52,900 followers, TikTok with 221,800 followers, and Instagram with 956,0000 followers. THE CHOSEN app is offered in the Apple App Store, and on the Android Google Play store with over 100K+ downloads. The app has been downloaded on every continent and the episodes are available in 62 languages. The app is available on Roku, Apple TV, or Amazon Fire streaming devices. Statistics change daily, but THE CHOSEN has approximately 405 million views. Complainant incorporates its mark THE CHOSEN in the domain name <thechosen.tv>. Complainant asserts rights in THE CHOSEN mark through its registration in the United States, filing date April 21, 2020, registration date September 7, 2021.
Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its the CHOSEN mark because it incorporates the mark in its entirety and merely adds the generic/descriptive term “app” along with the “.org” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).
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 Respondent to use its THE CHOSEN mark in any way. Respondent does not use the disputed domain name to make bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). Instead, the resolving website purported to offer links to stream THE CHOSEN through its own app; in fact, Respondent did not offer a functional or licensed app; its website was fraudulent, made unauthorized use of Complainant’s content and trademarks and was used to obtain information from visitors who attempted to download the fraudulent app.
Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain in bad faith. Respondent used the disputed domain name in bad faith to intentionally attract for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s website and to its purported mobile application download, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, and endorsement of Respondent’s website and a product and/or service of Respondent’s website. In addition, Respondent pirated Complainant’s copyrighted video series and marks.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant owns the mark THE CHOSEN and uses it to market a historical drama series.
For the purposes of the Policy, Complainant’s rights in its mark date back to at least April 21, 2020.
The disputed domain name was registered on August 24, 2021.
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark.
The resolving website displays copyright material copied from Complainant’s legitimate website and falsely suggests that it is associated with Complainant.
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 relevant date for Complainant’s mark is the filing date, see Lenovo (Beijing) Limited Corporation China v. jeonggon seo, FA 1591638 (Forum Jan. 16, 2015) (finding Complainant has rights in the LENOVO mark dating back to the February 20, 2003 filing date with the USPTO as the trademark application was ultimately successful); see also Hershey Co. v. Reaves, FA 967818 (Forum June 8, 2007) (finding that the complainant’s rights in the KISSES trademark through registration of the mark with the USPTO “date back to the filing date of the trademark application and predate [the] respondent’s registration”).
The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant’s THE CHOSEN mark in its entirety and merely adds the generic/descriptive term “app” along with the “.org” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”). The addition of a generic or descriptive term and gTLD generally fails sufficiently to distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Microsoft Corporation v. Thong Tran Thanh, FA 1653187 (Forum Jan. 21, 2016) (determining that confusing similarity exists 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). Therefore the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark per 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 whether a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. See Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. LY Ta, FA 1789106 (Forum June 21, 2018) (concluding a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name where the complainant asserted it did not authorize the respondent to use the mark, and the relevant WHOIS information indicated the respondent is not commonly known by the domain name). Here, the WHOIS information associated with the disputed domain indicate that the registrant is known as “Sharon Rhodes”. Therefore the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
Both the disputed domain name itself, and the content of the resolving website, falsely suggest that they are associated with the Complainant. That is not a fair or legitimate use of the disputed domain name. Indeed, according to paragraph 2.5 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0): “Fundamentally, a respondent’s use of a domain name will not be considered ‘fair’ if it falsely suggests affiliation with the trademark owner …”. See 201 Folsom Option JV, L.P. and 201 Folsom Acquisition, L.P. v. John Kirkpatrick, D2014-1359 (WIPO, Oct. 28, 2014). Consequently the Panel finds that Respondent has failed to use the disputed domain name to make bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). And the Panel finds that Respondent lacks 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 marks. 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, consumers visiting the resolving website are likely to be confused as to whether Respondent and/or its website is affiliated in some way with Complainant; and/or the disputed domain name or the associated website are endorsed, authorized, or sponsored by Complainant, none of which are true. This is a form of bad faith use of the disputed domain name. See G.D. Searle & Co. v. Celebrex Drugstore, FA 123933 (Forum Nov. 21, 2002) (finding that the respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) because the respondent was using the confusingly similar domain name to attract Internet users to its commercial website); see also Carey Int’l, Inc. v. Kogan, FA 486191 (Forum July 29, 2005) (“[T]he Panel finds that Respondent is capitalizing on the confusing similarity of its domain names to benefit from the valuable goodwill that Complainant has established in its marks. Consequently, it is found that Respondent registered and used the domain names in bad faith”); see also Bank of America Corp. v. Out Island Props., Inc., FA 154531 (Forum June 3, 2003) (bad faith established “[s]ince the disputed domain names contain entire versions of Complainant’s marks and are used for something completely unrelated to their descriptive quality, a consumer searching for Complainant would become confused as to Complainant’s affiliation with the resulting search engine website.”). Thus the Panel finds bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Further, Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s mark: the resolving website displays copyright 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 registration and use 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 <thechosenapp.org> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Richard Hill, Panelist
Dated: February 20, 2023
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page