Qurate Retail, Inc. v. 林 凡 / 雪 林 / Chen Gang / 铁 陈 / 铜 陈 / Chen You Xuan
Claim Number: FA2302002030926
Complainant is Qurate Retail, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Eric J. Shimanoff of Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman, P.C., New York. Respondent is 林 凡 / 雪 林 / Chen Gang / 铁 陈 / 铜 陈 / Chen You Xuan (“Respondent”), CN.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <qurate.life>, <qurateau.com>, <qurateuk.com>, <qurateaus.live>, <qurate2-revue.com>, <uk-qurate2.com>, <uk-qurate2,net>, <uk-qurate2-app.net>, <qurate2-ranks.com>, <qurate2-program.com>, <qurate2-scale.com>, <ukqurate.com>, <ukqurate-k.com>, and <qurateauuk.com>, registered with Name.com, 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.
Charles A. Kuechenmeister, Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 7, 2023; Forum received payment on February 7, 2023.
On February 9, 2023, Name.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <qurate.life>, <qurateau.com>, <qurateuk.com>, <qurateaus.live>, <qurate2-revue.com>, <uk-qurate2.com>, <uk-qurate2,net>, <uk-qurate2-app.net>, <qurate2-ranks.com>, <qurate2-program.com>, <qurate2-scale.com>, <ukqurate.com>, <ukqurate-k.com>, <qurateauuk.com> domain names (the Domain Names) are registered with Name.com, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Name.com, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Name.com, 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 February 14, 2023, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint setting a deadline of March 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@qurate.life, postmaster@qurateau.com, postmaster@qurateuk.com, postmaster@qurateaus.live, postmaster@qurate2-revue.com, postmaster@uk-qurate2.com, postmaster@admin.uk-qurate2.net, postmaster@admin.uk-qurate2-app.net, postmaster@qurate2-ranks.com, postmaster@qurate2-program.com, postmaster@qurate2-scale.com, postmaster@ukqurate.com, postmaster@ukqurate-k.com, postmaster@qurateauuk.com. Also on February 14, 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 March 13, 2023, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Charles A. Kuechenmeister 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 a Response from Respondent.
Complainant requests that the Domain Names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
PRELIMINARY ISSUE:
Multiple Domain Names
The Complaint names six persons as Respondents and relates to 14 Domain Names. Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules provides that a “complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder.” Complainant alleges that all 14 Domain Names are operated by the same person or entity using different aliases. The information furnished to Forum by the registrar demonstrates that the <qurateau.com>, ,<qurateuk.com>, <qurateaus.live>, <ukqurate.com>, <ukqurate-k.com>, <qurateauuk.com> Domain Names (Group One) are registered to the same person (雪 林), that the <uk-qurate2.com>, <uk-qurate2,net>, and <qurate2-program.com> Domain Names (Group Two) are registered to the same person (铁 陈), and that the <uk-qurate2-app.net>, and <qurate2-ranks.com> Domain Names (Group Three) are registered to the same person (铜 陈). The remaining Domain Names are all registered to different persons, and the registrants of the three groups of Domain Names first listed above are all different from each other. Nevertheless, the website resolving from one of the Domain Names in Group Two is identical to the website of one of the Domain Names in Group Three and to the website resolving from the <qurate2-revue.com> Domain Name, and the <qurate.life>, <qurateau.com>, <qurateuk.com>, <qurateaus.live>, <ukqurate-k.com>, <qurateauuk.com>, <uk-qurate2.com>, <uk-qurate2,net>, <uk-qurate2-app.net>, <qurate2-scale.com>, Domain Names all resolve to the same parking page stating that the website can’t be reached. All of the Domain Names were registered with the same registrar between September and December 2022 (WHOIS printouts submitted as Complaint Exhibit 6) and all of them utilize naming conventions that are sufficiently similar to each other to evidence a common ownership or control among all of them. On this evidence, the Panel finds that all 14 Domain Names are registered to the same person or entity or are under common control and will proceed as to both of them. Caterpillar v. Arendt, FA1805001789701 (Forum July 2, 2018), (“The Panel finds that the domain names are under common control because the three domain names are constructed in the same manner, were registered on the same date with the same registrar, have been used in the same way, and use Cloudfare servers. Also, the registrant used the same privacy service for all three domain names. These elements are sufficient to find that the domain names were registered by the same domain name holder.”). References to “Respondent” in this Decision, even though in the singular, refer to all of the named Respondents.
A. Complainant
Complainant is a Fortune 500 media conglomerate. It has rights in the QURATE RETAIL GROUP mark based upon its registration of that mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”). Respondent’s Domain Names are virtually identical and confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark because they all incorporate the dominant QURATE portion of the QURATE RETAIL GROUP mark and merely add a numeral, a generic term, or a geographic identifier and the “.com,” “.net,” “.life,” or “.live” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names. It is not commonly known by the Domain Names and Complainant has not authorized or licensed Respondent any rights in the QURATE RETAIL GROUP mark. Additionally, Respondent is not using the Domain Names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, one of the Domain Names resolves to a page with various links unrelated to the goods and services offered by Complainant, ten of them resolve to inactive webpages, and three of them resolve to websites which impersonate Complainant and host a phishing scam.
Respondent registered and uses the Domain Names in bad faith. One of the Domain Names resolves to a page with various links unrelated to the goods and services offered by Complainant, ten of them resolve to inactive websites, and three of them resolve to websites which impersonate Complainant and host a phishing scam.
B. Respondent
Respondent did not submit a Response in this proceeding.
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 a complainant to prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order cancelling or transferring a domain name:
(1) the domain name registered by the respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and
(2) the 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, pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules the Panel will decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations 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. Nevertheless, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. 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”), WIPO Overview 3.0, at ¶ 4.3 (“In cases involving wholly unsupported and conclusory allegations advanced by the complainant, . . . panels may find that—despite a respondent’s default—a complainant has failed to prove its case.”).
The Panel finds as follows with respect to the matters at issue in this proceeding:
The QURATE RETAIL GROUP mark was registered to Complainant with the USPTO (Reg. No. 5,921,649) on November 26, 2019 (TSDR printout included in Complaint Exhibit 5). Complainant’s registration of its mark with the USPTO establishes its rights in that mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). 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).”).
Respondent’s <qurate.life>, <qurateau.com>, <qurateuk.com>, <qurateaus.live>, <qurate2-revue.com>, <uk-qurate2.com>, <uk-qurate2,net>, <uk-qurate2-app.net>, <qurate2-ranks.com>, <qurate2-program.com>, <qurate2-scale.com>, <ukqurate.com>, <ukqurate-k.com>, and <qurateauuk.com> Domain Names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s QURATE RETAIL GROUP mark. They incorporate the dominant QURATE portion of Complainant’s mark, merely omitting spaces, and adding a numeral, a hyphen, a generic term or geographic identifier, or combinations thereof, and the “.com,” “.net,” “.life,” or “.live” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”). These changes do not distinguish the Domain Names from Complainant’s mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Huron Consulting Group Inc. v. David White, FA 1701395 (Forum Dec. 6, 2016) (finding that Respondent’s <huroninc.net> domain name is confusingly similar to the HURON CONSULTING GROUP and HURON HEALTHCARE marks under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) because in creating the domain name, the respondent contains the dominant portion of the marks and appends the term “inc” and a gTLD), Dell Inc. v. SNAB Corporation, FA 1785051 (Forum May 30, 2018) (finding the inclusion of a geographic term did not distinguish the domain name and increased possible confusion, as “[t]he geographic term “hyderabad” is also suggestive of Complainant as Complainant has corporate offices in Hyderabad, India.”), Health Devices Corp. v. Aspen S T C, FA 158254 (Forum July 1, 2003) (“[T]he addition of punctuation marks such as hyphens is irrelevant in the determination of confusing similarity pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”), 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. Likewise, the absence of spaces must be disregarded under a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis because domain name syntax prohibits them.”). The WIPO Overview 3.0, at ¶ 1.7, states that the test for confusing similarity “typically involves a side-by-side comparison of the domain name and the textual components of the relevant trademark to assess whether the mark is recognizable within the domain name.” Notwithstanding the changes described above, Complainant’s mark is clearly recognizable within the Domain Names.
For the reasons set forth above, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the QURATE RETAIL GROUP mark, in which Complainant has substantial and demonstrated rights.
If a complainant makes a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), the burden of production shifts to respondent to come forward with evidence that it has rights or legitimate interests in it. Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) (“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”). If a respondent fails to come forward with such evidence, the complainant’s prima facie evidence will be sufficient to establish that respondent lacks such rights or legitimate interests. If the respondent does come forward with such evidence, the Panel must assess the evidence in its entirety. At all times, the burden of proof remains on the complainant. WIPO Overview 3.0, at ¶ 2.1.
Policy ¶ 4(c) lists the following three nonexclusive circumstances, any one of which if proven can demonstrate a respondent’s rights or legitimate interests in a domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii):
(i) Before any notice to the respondent of the dispute, the respondent’s use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services;
(ii) The respondent (as an individual, business or other organization) has been commonly known by the domain name, even if the respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
(iii) The respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.
Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names because (i) it is not commonly known by the Domain Names, (ii) Complainant has not authorized or licensed Respondent any rights in the QURATE RETAIL GROUP mark, (iii) Respondent is not using the Domain Names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use but instead one of the Domain Names resolves to a page with various links unrelated to the goods and services offered by Complainant, ten of them resolve to inactive webpages, and three of them resolve to websites which impersonate Complainant and host a phishing scam. These allegations are addressed as follows:
The information furnished to Forum by the registrar lists 林 凡 雪 林, Chen Gang, / 铁, 陈, 铜 陈, and Chen You Xuan as registrants of the Domain Names. None of these names bears any resemblance to any of the Domain Names. Evidence could, of course, in a given case demonstrate that the respondent is commonly known by a domain name different from the name in which it registered the domain name, e.g., the case of a domain name incorporating the brand name of a specific product offered by and associated with the respondent. In the absence of any such evidence, however, UDRP panels have consistently held that WHOIS evidence of a registrant name which does not correspond with the domain name is sufficient to prove that the respondent is not commonly known by the domain name. Guardair Corporation v. Pablo Palermo, FA1407001571060 (Forum Aug. 28, 2014) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <guardair.com> domain name according to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), as the WHOIS information lists “Pablo Palermo” as registrant of the disputed domain name), Alaska Air Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines v. Song Bin, FA1408001574905 (Forum Sept. 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). The Panel is satisfied that Respondent has not been commonly known by the Domain Names.
Complainant states that it has not authorized or licensed Respondent to use its mark. Complainant has specific competence to make this statement, and it is unchallenged by any evidence before the Panel. In the absence of evidence that a respondent is authorized to use a complainant’s mark in a domain name or that a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name, the respondent may be presumed to lack rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. IndyMac Bank F.S.B. v. Eshback, FA 830934 (Forum Dec. 7, 2006) (finding that the respondent failed to establish rights and legitimate interests in the <emitmortgage.com> domain name as the respondent was not authorized to register domain names featuring the complainant’s mark and failed to submit evidence that it is commonly known by the domain name), Indeed, Inc. v. Ankit Bhardwaj / Recruiter, FA 1739470 (Forum Aug. 3, 2017) (”Respondent lacks both rights and legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue 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.”).
Complaint Exhibit 7 consists of screenshots of the parking pages to which the <qurate.life>, <qurateau.com>, <qurateuk.com>, <qurateaus.live>, <ukqurate-k.com>, <qurateauuk.com>, <uk-qurate2.com>, <uk-qurate2,net>, <uk-qurate2-app.net>, and <qurate2-scale.com> Domain Names resolve. The only substantive content on these pages is the message “This site can’t be reached.” This is not an active use of these Domain Names. As such it is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services as contemplated by Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use as contemplated by Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). Morgan Stanley v. Francis Mccarthy / Baltec Marine Llc, FA 1785347 (Forum June 8, 2018) (“both Domain Names resolve to a web site that shows the words, ‘Not Found, The requested URL / was not found on this server.’ ’ Inactive holding of a domain name does not qualify as a bona fide offering of goods or services within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate non-commercial or fair use within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”).
Complaint Exhibit 8 is a screenshot of the website to which the <ukqurate.com> Domain Name resolves. The site is obviously commercial in nature, featuring hyperlinks for banking and other financial services. Using a confusingly similar domain name to attract Internet traffic to a webpage that offers pay-per-click links to goods and services, whether related or unrelated to a complainant’s business, is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). McGuireWoods LLP v. Mykhailo Loginov / Loginov Enterprises d.o.o, FA1412001594837 (Forum Jan. 22, 2015) (“The Panel finds Respondent’s use of the disputed domain names to feature parked hyperlinks containing links in competition with Complainant’s legal services is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), and it is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”), Vance Int’l, Inc. v. Abend, FA 970871 (Forum June 8, 2007) (concluding that the operation of a pay-per-click website at a confusingly similar domain name does not represent a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, regardless of whether or not the links resolve to competing or unrelated websites or if the respondent is itself commercially profiting from the click-through fees), Materia, Inc. v. Michele Dinoia, FA1507001627209 (Forum Aug. 20, 2015) (“The Panel finds that Respondent is using a confusingly similar domain name to redirect users to a webpage with unrelated hyperlinks, that Respondent has no other rights to the domain name, and finds that Respondent is not making a bona fide offering or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.”).
Complaint Exhibit 9 contains screenshots of the websites resolving from the <qurate2-revue.com>, <qurate2-ranks.com>, and <qurate2-program.com> Domain Names. They all feature essentially the same login page purportedly for the visitor to login to his or her account with Complainant. They solicit the visitor’s name, telephone number, security PIN, login password and an invitation code. They unambiguously represent that the site is sponsored by Complainant, prominently featuring Complainant’s mark at the top of each page and a copyright footer at the bottom representing that the page is copyrighted to Complainant. Respondent is passing off as Complainant and under those false pretenses seeking to harvest sensitive personal information about visitors to the site. This qualifies as phishing, which is a fraudulent attempt to obtain sensitive information such as usernames, passwords and credit card details by disguising oneself as a trustworthy entity in an electronic communication. Using a confusingly similar domain name to pass off as a complainant and engage in phishing is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services for the purposes of Policy ¶4(c)(ii) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(iv). Ripple Labs Inc. v. NGYEN NGOC PHUONG THAO, FA 1741737 (Forum Aug.21, 2017) (“Respondent uses the [disputed] domain name to divert Internet users to Respondent’s website… confusing them into believing that some sort of affiliation exists between it and Complainant [which] is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”), Enterprise Holdings, Inc. v. I S / Internet Consulting Services Inc., FA 1785242 (Forum June 5, 2018) (“On its face, the use of a domain name that is confusingly similar to the mark of another in order to facilitate a phishing scheme cannot be described as either a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶4(c)(iii).”).
The evidence furnished by Complainant establishes the required prima facie case. On that evidence, and in the absence of any evidence from Respondent, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names.
Policy ¶ 4(b) sets forth a nonexclusive list of four circumstances, any one of which if proven would be evidence of bad faith use and registration of a domain name. They are as follows:
(i) circumstances indicating that the respondent has registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant which is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the respondent’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
(ii) the respondent has registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that the respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
(iii) the respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) by using the domain name, the respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the respondent’s web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the respondent’s web site or location or of a product of service on the respondent‘s web site or location.
The evidence of Respondent’s conduct discussed above in the rights or legitimate interests analysis also supports a finding of bad faith registration and use, based upon one or more of the foregoing grounds articulated in the Policy and upon additional grounds adopted by UDRP panels over the years. First, Respondent is using the confusingly similar <ukqurate.com> Domain Name to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its web site by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of its website, as described in Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). Respondent here obtains commercial gain from its use of this Domain Name and the resolving website to generate pay-per-click revenues. Pay-per-click sites are common on the Internet. Under the most common forms of business arrangements relating to these sites, when a visitor to the site clicks on one of the links which appear there, the site sponsor receives compensation from the various web site owners who are forwarded from the site. In most cases, the site sponsor receives compensation based upon the number of hits the downstream web site owners get from being linked to Respondent’s web site. AllianceBernstein LP v. Texas International Property Associates, Case No. D2008-1230 (WIPO, 2008) (the domain name resolved to a search directory site with links to third-party vendors and the panel inferred that the respondent received click-through-fees when site visitors clicked on those links), Brownells, Inc. v. Texas International Property Associates, Case No. D2007-1211 (WIPO, 2007), (finding in similar cases that a respondent intentionally attempted to attract internet searchers for commercial gain). Respondent’s use of the Domain Names is commercial also because the sponsors of the various web sites forwarded from Respondent’s web site benefit from the subsequent interest and purchases of those who visit the sites. UDRP panels have held that there only needs to be commercial gain sought by some party for the use to be commercial. Focus Do It All Group v. Athanasios Sermbizis, Case No. D2000-0923 (WIPO,2000) (finding that “[I]t is enough that commercial gain is being sought for someone” for a use to be commercial).
As discussed above, Respondent registered and is using the <qurate2-revue.com>, <qurate2-ranks.com>, and <qurate2-program.com> Domain Names to impersonate Complainant and phish for the login information of Complainant’s customers to enable it to login to their accounts with Complainant. This fraudulent phishing scheme qualifies as evidence of bad faith registration and use. It does not fit within any of the circumstances listed in Policy ¶ 4(b), but that paragraph acknowledges that mischief can manifest in many different forms and takes an open-ended approach to bad faith, listing some examples without attempting to enumerate all its varieties. Worldwcom Exchange, Inc. v. Wei.com, Inc., WIPO Case No. D-2004-0955 (January 5, 2005). The non-exclusive nature of Policy ¶ 4(b) allows for consideration of additional factors in an analysis for bad faith, and passing oneself off as a complainant to phish for sensitive private information from others has often been held to evidence bad faith registration and use. Klabzuba Oil & Gas, Inc. v. LAKHPAT SINGH BHANDARI, FA1506001625750 (Forum July 17, 2015) (“Respondent uses the <klabzuba-oilgas.com> domain to engage in phishing, which means Respondent registered and uses the domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”), McKinsey & Company, Inc., and McKinsey Holdings, Inc. v. Privacy Protection, report abuse to / Registrar: DELTA-X Ltd., FA1409001580883 (Forum Oct. 25, 2014) (holding that the respondent had engaged in phishing, which is further evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii), when the respondent used the disputed domain name in an attempt to obtain Internet users’ personal information including their driver’s license number and name).
Also as discussed above, the <qurate.life>, <qurateau.com>, <qurateuk.com>, <qurateaus.live>, <ukqurate-k.com>, <qurateauuk.com>, <uk-qurate2.com>, <uk-qurate2,net>, <uk-qurate2-app.net>, and <qurate2-scale.com> Domain Names resolve to inactive websites. Passive holding of a domain name is evidence of bad faith. This also does not fit within any of the circumstances described in Policy ¶ 4(b) but in light of the non-exclusive nature of Policy ¶ 4(b), failure to make active use of a confusingly similar domain name is evidence of bad faith. Caravan Club v. Mrgsale, FA 95314 (Forum Aug. 30, 2000) (finding that the respondent made no use of the domain name or website that connects with the domain name, and that [failure to make an active use] of a domain name permits an inference of registration and use in bad faith).
Finally, although Complainant did not assert the argument, it is evident that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant and its mark when it registered the Domain Names in the period between September and December 2022 (WHOIS printouts submitted as Complaint Exhibit 6 show creation dates). The QURATE element of Complainant’s mark is a unique, coined term that would not normally be selected for a domain name except for the purpose of targeting Complainant. More importantly, the fact that Respondent impersonated Complainant with the <qurate2-revue.com>, <qurate2-ranks.com>, and <qurate2-program.com> Domain Names demonstrates conclusively that it was fully aware of Complainant and its rights in the QURATE RETAIL GROUP mark when it registered the Domain Names. Again, in light of the non-exclusive nature of Policy ¶ 4(b), registering a confusingly similar domain name with actual knowledge of a complainant’s rights in its mark is evidence of bad faith registration and use for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). 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).
For the reasons set forth above, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the Domain Names in bad faith within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Complainant having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <qurate.life>, <qurateau.com>, <qurateuk.com>, <qurateaus.live>, <qurate2-revue.com>, <uk-qurate2.com>, <admin.uk-qurate2.net>, <admin.uk-qurate2-app.net>, <qurate2-ranks.com>, <qurate2-program.com>, <qurate2-scale.com>, <ukqurate.com>, <ukqurate-k.com>, <qurateauuk.com> Domain Names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Charles A. Kuechenmeister, Panelist
March 17, 2023
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page