Charter Communications Holding Company, LLC v. Spectrum Cables
Claim Number: FA2304002040806
Complainant is Charter Communications Holding Company, LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Corsearch, Inc., Texas, USA. Respondent is Spectrum Cables (“Respondent”), Pakistan.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <spectrumcabless.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.
Richard Hill as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on April 19, 2023; Forum received payment on April 19, 2023.
On April 20, 2023, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <spectrumcabless.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 April 26, 2023, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of May 16, 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@spectrumcabless.com. Also on April 26, 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 May 17, 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, with a network covering more than 800,000 miles, it serves more than 32 million customers in 41 states through the SPECTRUM brand. Through its advanced communications network it offers a range of services. Spectrum Internet, TV, Mobile and Voice for residential services. Spectrum Business also offers special features and applications for small and midsize businesses. Spectrum Enterprise provides customized and fiber-optic based solutions for larger businesses. Spectrum Reach provides advertising and production service for larger businesses and government entities. Spectrum Network provides news coverage and sports programming to its customers. Spectrum Voice offers unlimited local and long distance calling to the U.S., Canada, Mexico, Puerto Rico, Guam, U.S. Virgin Islands, Northern Mariana Islands and American Samoa. Spectrum Voice International (SVI) offers unlimited calling to 70 countries, including India and Pakistan. Complainant and its parent company became a publicly traded company on NASDAQ in 1999 under the symbol CHTR. Complainant’s reported revenue for the year 2022 was $54 billion. It currently services 8.9 million voice subscribers, 5.3 mobile lines, 15 million Video subscribers and 30.4 broadband internet customers. Complainant asserts rights in the SPECTRUM trademark through its registration in the United States in 2021.
Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is virtually identical and confusingly similar to its SPECTRUM mark because it incorporates the mark in its entirety and merely adds the misspelled term “cabless” and the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).
According to Complainant, Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and Complainant has not authorized or licensed to Respondent any rights in the SPECTRUM mark. Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, the resolving website displays pay-per-click hyperlinks to products and services some of which compete with those offered by Complainant.
Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent registered the disputed domain name in order to disrupt Complainant’s business and divert customers for commercial gain by displaying advertising hyperlinks at the resolving website. Respondent engages in typosquatting. Respondent makes use of a privacy service. Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the SPECTRUM mark.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant has rights in the mark SPECTRUM dating back to at least 2021 and uses it to offer telecommunications services.
The disputed domain name was registered in 2023.
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark.
The resolving website displays pay-per-click hyperlinks to products and services some of which compete with those offered by 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 disputed domain name incorporates Complainant’s SPECTRUM mark in its entirety and merely adds the misspelled generic term “cabless” and a gTLD to the mark. The addition of a generic or descriptive term (even if misspelled) and a gTLD to a mark is generally insufficient to negate confusingly similar under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) (“Where a relevant trademark is recognizable within a disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element.”); see also Milliman, Inc v. Domain Administrator, See PrivacyGuardian.org/Zhichao Yang, D2018-2178 (WIPO, Nov. 17, 2018) (finding that the addition of “benefis”, “bennefits”, “bnefits”, and “benefits” does not distinguish a disputed domain name from the complainant’s trademarks and ordering the transfer of <millimanbenefis.com>, <millimanbennefits.com>, <millimanbnefits.com>, and <millimannbenefits.com>); see also 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.”). Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Respondent is not authorized or permitted to use Complainant’s SPECTRUM mark in any way and 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 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). Where the WHOIS is related to the disputed domain name, the Panel may still find the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name if the respondent lacks authorization to use the complainant’s mark and the respondent fails to provide affirmative evidence in support of its identity. See Ripple Labs Inc. v. Jessie McKoy / Ripple Reserve Fund, FA 1790949 (Forum July 9, 2018) (finding that, although the respondent listed itself as “Jessie McKoy / Ripple Reserve Fund” in the WHOIS contact information, it did not provide any affirmative evidence to support this identity; combined with the fact that the complainant claimed it did not authorize the respondent to use the mark, the respondent is not commonly known by the domain name). Here, the WHOIS information for the disputed domain name identifies the registrant as “Spectrum Cables” but Respondent provides no affirmative evidence in support of this identity and no evidence in the record suggests Respondent is authorized to use the SPECTRUM mark. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
Respondent uses the disputed domain name to display a parked webpage containing links to third-party sites, some of which offer products that compete with those of Complainant. Use of a domain name to redirect users to unrelated third-party sites (whether or not they compete with Complainant) is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See Constellation Wines U.S., Inc. v. Tex. Int’l Prop. Assocs., FA 948436 (Forum May 8, 2007) (finding that the respondent had no rights or legitimate interests under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or 4(c)(iii) by using the disputed domain name to operate a website featuring links to goods and services unrelated to the complainant); see also Coachella Music Festival, LLC v. josh greenly / All Access Tickets, FA1507001629217 (Forum Aug. 10, 2015) (finding that the respondent had failed to provide a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name as required under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii), where the respondent was using the disputed domain name to host a web page that featured links to services that competed with those of the complainant). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not using the disputed domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or 4(c)(iii). And the Panel finds that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Complainant alleges that Respondent engages in typosquatting. According to 1.9 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0”), typosquatting refers to misspelling of a mark. Here, Complainant’s mark is not misspelled. Therefore the Panel will not further consider this allegation.
Respondent (who did not reply to Complainant’s contentions) has not presented any plausible explanation for its use of Complainant’s mark. 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, Respondent uses the disputed domain name to disrupt Complainant’s business and attract users for commercial gain through the use of third-party links. Panels have found such a use of a domain name to constitute bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) and/or (iii). See Capital One Financial Corp. v. Above.com Domain Privacy / Above.com Domain Privacy, FA1501001598657 (Forum Feb. 20, 2015) (“This Panel agrees that Respondent’s use as shown in Exhibits C-D illustrates that Respondent here seeks commercial gain through a likelihood of confusion, as competing hyperlinks have been found to establish evidence of intent to seek commercial gain through referral fees, and thus demonstrates bad faith registration under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).”). Bad faith has been found even where a respondent has commercially benefited through links unrelated to a complainant’s mark. See Bank of Am. Fork v. Shen, FA 699645 (Forum June 11, 2006) (holding that the respondent’s previous use of the <bankofamericanfork.com> domain name to maintain a web directory was evidence of bad faith because the respondent presumably commercially benefited by receiving click-through fees for diverting Internet users to unrelated third-party websites); see also 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 Dovetail Ventures, LLC v. Klayton Thorpe, FA1506001625786 (Forum Aug. 2, 2015) (holding that the respondent had acted in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv), where it used the disputed domain name to host a variety of hyperlinks, unrelated to the complainant’s business, through which the respondent presumably commercially gained). Thus, the Panel finds bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and/or (iv).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <spectrumcabless.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Richard Hill, Panelist
Dated: May 18, 2023
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page