Parchment LLC v. Jian Zhang / Bei Jing Xu Ding Jiao Yu Zi Xun You Xian Gong Si
Claim Number: FA2301002029321
Complainant is Parchment LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Dwayne K. Goetzel, Texas, USA. Respondent is Jian Zhang / Bei Jing Xu Ding Jiao Yu Zi Xun You Xian Gong Si (“Respondent”), China.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <parchment.tech> (“Domain Name”), registered with Shanghai Meicheng Technology Information Development Co., Ltd..
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.
Nicholas J.T. Smith as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on January 27, 2023; Forum received payment on January 27, 2023.
On January 29, 2023, Shanghai Meicheng Technology Information Development Co., Ltd. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <parchment.tech> domain name is registered with Shanghai Meicheng Technology Information Development Co., Ltd. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Shanghai Meicheng Technology Information Development Co., Ltd. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Shanghai Meicheng Technology Information Development Co., Ltd. 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 31, 2023, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Chinese and English language Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 21, 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@parchment.tech. Also on January 31, 2023, the Chinese and English language 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 27, 2023, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Nicholas J.T. Smith 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.
The language of the Registration Agreement in this case is Chinese. The Complaint has been provided in English and Complainant has requested that the language of the proceeding be English.
It is established practice to take UDRP Rules 10(b) and (c) into consideration for the purpose of determining the language of the proceeding to ensure fairness and justice to both parties. Factors which previous panels have seen as particularly compelling are: WHOIS information which establishes Respondent in a country which would demonstrate familiarity with the English language, filing of a trademark registration with an entity which shows an understanding of the English language, and any evidence (or lack thereof) exhibiting Respondent’s understanding of the language requested by Complainant. See The Argento Wine Company Limited v. Argento Beijing Trading Company, D2009-0610 (WIPO July 1, 2009) (panel exercising discretion in deciding that the language of the proceedings advance in English, contrary to the Registration Agreement, based on evidence that respondent has command of the language). Further, the Panel may weigh the relative time and expense in enforcing the Chinese language agreement, which would result in prejudice toward either party. See Finter Bank Zurich v. Shumin Peng, D2006-0432 (WIPO June 12, 2006) (deciding that the proceeding should be in English, stating, “It is important that the language finally decided by the Panel for the proceeding is not prejudicial to either one of the parties in his or her ability to articulate the arguments for the case.”) and Zappos.com, Inc. v. Zufu aka Huahaotrade, Case No. D2008-1191 (WIPO October 15, 2008) (holding that proceedings could be conducted in English even though the registration agreement was in Chinese where “the disputed domain resolves to a website [that] is exclusively in English, from which can be reasonably presumed that the Respondent has the ability to communicate in English in order to conduct his business over the website in English”)
Pursuant to UDRP Rule 11(a), the Panel finds that persuasive evidence has been adduced by Complainant to suggest the likely possibility that the Respondent is conversant and proficient in the English language. The Domain Name consists of an English-language word, resolves to Complainant’s English-language website and has been used to send English-language e-mails to third parties that impersonate the Complainant. After considering the circumstances of the present case, including the material referred to above indicating that the Respondent is clearly able to communicate in English, and noting that the Respondent has not made any request that the proceeding continue in Chinese, the Panel decides that the proceeding should be continued in the English language.
A. Complainant
Complainant, Parchment LLC offers services for managing and verifying academic records. Complainant asserts rights in the PARCHMENT mark based upon registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 4,198,220, registered August 28, 2012). Respondent’s <parchment.tech> is confusingly similar to Complainant’s PARCHMENT trademark because it contain the mark in its entirety and adds the generic top-level domain name (“gTLD”) “.tech”.
Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <parchment.tech> domain name. Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant’s PARCHMENT mark and is not commonly known by the Domain Name. Respondent also does not use the Domain Name for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, Respondent sends e-mails passing off as Complainant in furtherance of a fraudulent scheme, by attaching academic documents that are purported to have been verified by Complainant, when this is not the case.
Respondent registered and uses the <parchment.tech> domain name in bad faith. Respondent’s emails disrupts Complainant’s business. Respondent passes off as Complainant in furtherance of a fraud. Respondent creates a likelihood of confusion with Complainant for commercial gain. Respondent and constructive or actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the PARCHMENT mark.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant holds trademark rights for the PARCHMENT mark. The Domain Name is identical to Complainant’s PARCHMENT mark. Complainant has established that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the use of the Domain Name and that Respondent registered and has used the Domain Name 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 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”).
Complainant has rights in the PARCHMENT mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through its registration of the mark with the USPTO (e.g Reg. No. 4,198,220, registered August 28, 2012). Registration of a mark with the USPTO is sufficient to establish rights in that mark. See DIRECTV, LLC v. The Pearline Group, FA 1818749 (Forum Dec. 30, 2018) (“Complainant’s ownership of a USPTO registration for DIRECTV demonstrate its rights in such mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”).
The Panel finds that the <parchment.tech> Domain Name is identical to the PARCHMENT mark as it fully incorporates the PARCHMENT mark adding only the “.tech” gTLD. Addition of a gTLD to a mark is irrelevant in examining confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Dell Inc. v. Protection of Private Person / Privacy Protection, FA 1681432 (Forum Aug. 1, 2016) (“A TLD (whether a gTLD, sTLD or ccTLD) is disregarded under a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis because domain name syntax requires TLDs.”).
The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant alleges that Respondent holds no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. In order for Complainant to succeed under this element, it must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the Domain Name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006) and AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Forum Sept. 25, 2006) (“Complainant must first make a prima facie showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names, which burden is light. If Complainant satisfies its burden, then the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain names.”). The Panel holds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case.
Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name as Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name, nor has Complainant authorized Respondent to use the PARCHMENT mark. Respondent has no relationship, affiliation, connection, endorsement or association with Complainant. WHOIS information can help support a finding that a respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, especially where a privacy service has been engaged. See State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Dale Anderson, FA1504001613011 (Forum May 21, 2015) (concluding that because the WHOIS record lists “Dale Anderson” as the registrant of the disputed domain name, the respondent was not commonly known by the <statefarmforum.com> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)); see also Kohler Co. v. Privacy Service, FA1505001621573 (Forum July 2, 2015) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) where “Privacy Service” was listed as the registrant of the disputed domain name). The WHOIS lists “Jian Zhang / Bei Jing Xu Ding Jiao Yu Zi Xun You Xian Gong Si” as registrant of record. Coupled with Complainant’s unrebutted assertions as to absence of any affiliation or authorization between the parties, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name in accordance with Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
The Domain Name resolves to Complainant’s official website at <www.parchment.com>. The use of a confusingly similar domain name to resolve to a complainant’s website does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use as it may provide a false impression that the Respondent is affiliated with or authorized by Complainant. See Direct Line Ins. plc v. Low-cost-domain, FA 1337658 (Forum Sept. 8, 2010) (“The Panel finds that using Complainant’s mark in a domain name over which Complainant has no control, even if the domain name redirects to Complainant’s actual site, is not consistent with the requirements of Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or ¶ 4(c)(iii)...”). Complainant alleges, and provides evidence supporting its allegations, that Respondent uses an email address associated with Domain Name to attempt to pass itself off as Complainant in furtherance of a fraudulent scam, attaching academic documents purportedly verified by Complainant when this is not the case. Use of a disputed domain name to pass off as a complainant through emails is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Emerson Electric Co. v. Adilcon Rocha, FA 1735949 (Forum July 11, 2017) (finding that respondent’s attempt to pass off as complainant through emails does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services and, as such, respondent lacked rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name).
The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
The Panel finds that, at the time Respondent registered the Domain Name, March 1, 2022, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s PARCHMENT mark. The Respondent has used the Domain Name to pass itself off as Complainant for financial gain. In the absence of rights or legitimate interests of its own this demonstrates registration in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
The Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the Domain Name in bad faith as Respondent uses an email address associated with the Domain Name to attempt to pass itself off as the Complainant to disrupt the Complainant’s business or for financial gain. Using a disputed domain name to pass off as the complainant via email can demonstrate bad faith under Policy ¶¶ 4(b) (iii) and (iv). See Abbvie, Inc. v. James Bulow, FA 1701075 (Forum Nov. 30, 2016) (“Respondent uses the <abbuie.com> domain name to impersonate Complainant’s CEO. Such use is undeniably disruptive to Complainant’s business and demonstrates bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii), and/or Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)”); see also Qatalyst Partners LP v. Devimore, FA 1393436 (Forum July 13, 2011) (finding that using the disputed domain name as an e-mail address to pass itself off as the complainant in a phishing scheme is evidence of bad faith registration and use). Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the Domain Name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
In addition, the Panel finds that Respondent’s use of Domain Name to resolve to resolve to Complainant’s official website is use in bad faith as it creates a false impression of affiliation. Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii), redirecting a disputed domain name to a complainant’s own website may still constitute bad faith. See Ameriquest Mortgage Co. v. Banks, D2003-0293 (WIPO June 6, 2003) (concluding that respondent acted in bad faith by using the disputed domain name to redirect Internet traffic to Complainant’s own website because it “interferes with Complainant’s ability to control the use of its own trademarks on the Internet” . . . [and] creates a risk that Respondent could collect and use data about Internet users intending to access Complainant’s website”); see also Verizon Trademark Servs. LLC v. Boyiko, FA 1382148 (Forum May 12, 2011) (“The Panel finds that Respondent’s registration and use of the confusingly similar disputed domain name, even where it resolves to Complainant’s own site, is still registration and use in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”).
The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied 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 <parchment.tech> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Nicholas J.T. Smith, Panelist
Dated: February 27, 2023
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page