Interpower Corporation v. Ge Rong Kai
Claim Number: FA2303002038209
Complainant is Interpower Corporation (“Complainant”), represented by Mark A. Steiner of Duane Morris LLP, California, USA. Respondent is Ge Rong Kai (“Respondent”), China.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <interpower.xyz> (“Domain Name”), registered with Xin Net Technology Corporation.
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 March 30, 2023; Forum received payment on March 30, 2023.
On April 4, 2023, Xin Net Technology Corporation confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <interpower.xyz> domain name is registered with Xin Net Technology Corporation and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Xin Net Technology Corporation has verified that Respondent is bound by the Xin Net Technology Corporation 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 April 4, 2023, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Chinese and English Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 24, 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@interpower.xyz. Also on April 4, 2023, the Chinese and English 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 May 1. 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.
PRELIMINARY ISSUE: LANGUAGE OF PROCEEDING
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 website to which the Domain Name resolves to (“Respondent’s Website”) is in English and the Domain Name consists of two English language words. The Respondent’s e-mail address consists of three English words advertising Respondent’s services as a domain name seller. The Panel also notes that the Respondent has not objected in any way to the proceeding continuing in English. After considering the circumstances of the present case, the Panel decides that the proceeding should be in English.
A. Complainant
Complainant, Interpower Corporation, makes electrical components and has used the INTERPOWER mark since 1984. Complainant has rights in the INTERPOWER mark through Complainant’s registration of the mark with the Chinese government as well as the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g. Reg. No. 3,223,753, registered on April 3, 2007). Respondent’s <interpower.xyz> domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s INTERPOWER mark as it incorporates Complainant’s mark in its entirety and merely adds the “.xyz” generic top-level-domain ("gTLD").
Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the <interpower.xyz> domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name, nor has Respondent been authorized by Complainant to use the INTERPOWER mark. Respondent has not used the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services as Respondent is offering the Domain Name for sale to the general public from the Respondent’s Website.
Respondent registered and uses the <interpower.xyz> domain name in bad faith. Respondent disrupts Complainant’s business as Respondent registered the Domain Name with the intent to sell the domain name. Furthermore, the Domain Name resolves to an inactive website.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant holds trademark rights for the INTERPOWER mark. The Domain Name is identical to Complainant’s INTERPOWER mark. Complainant has established that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in 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 asserts rights in the INTERPOWER mark through its registration of the mark with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 3,223,753, registered on April 3, 2007). Registration of a mark with the USPTO is generally sufficient to establish rights in the mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). 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 <interpower.xyz> domain name identical to Complainant’s INTERPOWER mark as it wholly incorporates the mark along with the “.xyz” gTLD. Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), the addition of a TLD is irrelevant in determining whether a domain name and mark are identical. See Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association v. Shi Lei aka Shilei, FA 1784643 (Forum June 18, 2018) (“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 INTERPOWER 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 “Ge Rong Kai” 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 presently resolves to an English-language webpage maintained by a third party which advertises that the Domain Name is for sale for a sum well in excess of any out-of-pocket costs that could have been incurred by Respondent in connection with the registration of that domain name. Absent any other explanation, this indicates that the Domain Name was registered for the purpose of selling it to a third party for profit. Absent any explanation by Respondent for its conduct, such conduct is not by itself a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See AOL Inc. v. YourJungle Privacy Protection Service aka Whois Agent, FA1312001533324 (Forum Jan. 17, 2014) (“Respondent has offered the <aoljobsweek.com> domain name for sale to the general public, which demonstrates that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).”).
The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
The Panel finds on the balance of probabilities that, at the time of registration of the Domain Name, March 18, 2023, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s INTERPOWER mark. Complainant has used the INTERPOWER mark for almost 40 years and has registrations for the mark for over 15 years in China, the location of the Respondent. Furthermore, Respondent has not provided an explanation why it registered a domain name identical to the coined INTERPOWER mark (and offered it for sale to the public) other than to take advantage of Complainant’s reputation in the INTERPOWER mark. In the absence of rights or legitimate interests of its own this demonstrates registration in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Respondent has, without alternative explanation, registered a domain name that is identical to the INTERPOWER mark and offered it for sale to the public. An offer to sell a disputed domain name may be evidence of bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(i). See loanDepot.com, LLC v. sm goo, FA 1786848 (Forum June 12, 2018) (finding that where a respondent’s only employment of a substantially identical domain name is to attempt to sell the name, there exist sufficient grounds to find the respondent registered and used the name in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(i)). In the present case, given the nature of the Domain Name, the manner in which it has been used and the lack of alternative explanation provided by Respondent, the Panel finds that the Respondent registered and used the Domain Name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(i).
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 <interpower.xyz> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Nicholas J.T. Smith, Panelist
Dated: May 2, 2023
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page