CommScope, Inc. of North Carolina v. Registration Private / Domains By Proxy, LLC
Claim Number: FA2305002044776
Complainant is CommScope, Inc. of North Carolina (“Complainant”), represented by William Schultz of Merchant & Gould, P.C., Minnesota, USA. Respondent is Registration Private / Domains By Proxy, LLC (“Respondent”), Arizona, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <commscope.ai>, registered with 1API GmbH.
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 May 16, 2023; Forum received payment on May 16, 2023.
On May 17, 2023, 1API GmbH confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <commscope.ai> domain name is registered with 1API GmbH and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. 1API GmbH has verified that Respondent is bound by the 1API GmbH 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 May 18, 2023, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of June 7, 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@commscope.ai. Also on May 18, 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 June 13, 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 provides communication products and services. With roots dating back to 1937, Complainant has played a role in virtually all of the world’s best communication networks. It creates the infrastructure that connects people and technologies, including wired and wireless networks. Complainant was instrumental in creating cable TV infrastructure, the first wireless networks, the first data centers, and the first intelligent buildings. Today, Complainant offers a wide range of services under the COMMSCOPE mark, including, broadband solutions, enterprise solutions, and wireless solutions. Complainant has also used the COMMSCOPE mark in connection with a wide range of products, including antennas, cables, connectors, and networking systems, among others. Complainant uses its COMMSCOPE mark in connection with various artificial intelligence (“AI”) systems. For example, Complainant develops systems that assist in incident detection, prioritization, and scope in relation to network analytics. Complainant has comprehensive cloud service technology that uses AI to identify service-affecting issues and classify those issues related to severity. Complainant has rights in the COMMSCOPE mark through its registration in the United States in 1994. The mark is well known.
Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its COMMSCOPE mark as it incorporates the entire mark and merely adds the “.ai” 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 or licensed Respondent to use its COMMSCOPE mark in any way. Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, but instead fails to make active use of the domain name. Respondent may use the email address associated with the disputed domain name to send emails in furtherance of fraudulent phishing schemes.
Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith as it inactively holds the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name was registered in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii) because at the time the name was registered, Respondent knew of Complainant’s trademark rights and engaged in a pattern of such registration to prevent Complainant from using the disputed domain name. Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the COMMSCOPE mark.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant owns the mark COMMSCOPE and uses it to market communication products and services. The mark is well known.
Complainant’s rights in its mark date back to at least 1994.
The disputed domain name was registered in 2023.
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark.
The disputed domain name is not being used. Respondent has engaged in a pattern of bad faith registration and use of domain names.
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 COMMSCOPE mark in its entirety and merely adds the “.ai” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”). Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), adding a TLD is insufficient to differentiate a domain name from a mark. See Bittrex, Inc. v. Privacy protection service - whoisproxy.ru, FA 1759828 (Forum Jan. 12, 2018) (“The Panel here finds that the <bittrex.market> domain name is identical to the BITTREX mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”). Thus the Panel finds that the <commscope.ai> domain name is identical to Complainant’s COMMSCOPE mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its COMMSCOPE mark. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name: under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), relevant WHOIS information may demonstrate that a Respondent is not commonly known by a disputed domain name. See 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)). Here, the WHOIS information of record identifies the registrant as “Registration Private / Domains By Proxy, LLC”. Thus the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
Complainant alleges that Respondent may use the disputed domain name in fraudulent phishing emails, but presents no evidence to support that allegation. As noted above, the Panel need not take into account allegations that are not supported by evidence. See also by analogy Chris Pearson v. Domain Admin / Automattic, Inc., FA 1613723 (Forum July 3, 2015) (finding that the complainant could not establish the respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith because it failed to present evidence that would support such a holding).
According to paragraph 4.8 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0”), a Panel may conduct limited factual research regarding disputed domain names:
Noting in particular the general powers of a panel articulated inter alia in paragraphs 10 and 12 of the UDRP Rules, it has been accepted that a panel may undertake limited factual research into matters of public record if it would consider such information useful to assessing the case merits and reaching a decision.
This may include visiting the website linked to the disputed domain name in order to obtain more information about the respondent or its use of the domain name, consulting historical resources such as the Internet Archive (www.archive.org) in order to obtain an indication of how a domain name may have been used in the relevant past, reviewing dictionaries or encyclopedias (e.g., Wikipedia), or accessing trademark registration databases.
The Panel has determined that there are no MX records for the disputed domain name, therefore, at least at present, it is not possible that Respondent may intend to use it in connection with emails for phishing.
The Panel invites Respondent, and its counsel, to perform basic checks, such as for MX records, before making allegations, so as to avoid making untenable allegations.
The disputed domain name is not being used. Under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii), failure to make active use of a disputed domain name does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See CrossFirst Bankshares, Inc. v. Yu-Hsien Huang, FA 1785415 (Forum June 6, 2018) (“Complainant demonstrates that Respondent fails to actively use the disputed domain name as it resolves to an inactive website. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent fails to actively use the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).”). Thus the Panel finds that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain to make a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). And the Panel finds that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Complainant, referring to Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii), alleges that Respondent has engaged in a pattern of bad faith registration and use of domain names. However, it provides no evidence to support that allegation.
As noted above, the Panel need not take into account such unsupported allegations. However, also as already noted, the Panel may perform limited independent research.
The Panel has consulted a database of UDRP decisions, and it finds that indeed Respondent “Registration Private / Domains By Proxy, LLC” has been found to have registered and used domain names in bad faith in numerous prior UDRP proceedings. Prior adverse UDRP decisions can substantiate an argument that a respondent registered and uses a disputed domain name in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). See Webster Financial Corporation and Webster Bank, National Association v. Above.com Domain Privacy, FA1209001464477 (Forum Nov. 30, 2012) (finding where the record reflected that the respondent had been a respondent in other UDRP proceedings in which it was ordered to transfer disputed domain names to various complainants established a pattern of bad faith registration and use of domain names and stood as evidence of bad faith in the registration and use of domain names under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii)); see also DIRECTV, LLC v. michal restl c/o Dynadot, FA 1788826 (Forum July 5, 2018) (“The record contains evidence of Respondent’s previous eleven UDRP actions, all of which resulted in the transfer of the domain names, thus establishing bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii).”). Thus the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii).
Further, also as already noted, the disputed domain name is not being used. According to paragraph 3.3 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0): “From the inception of the UDRP, panelists have found that the non-use of a domain name (including a blank or “coming soon” page) would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. While panelists will look at the totality of the circumstances in each case, factors that have been considered relevant in applying the passive holding doctrine include: (i) the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant’s mark, (ii) the failure of the respondent to submit a response or to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good-faith use, (iii) the respondent’s concealing its identity or use of false contact details (noted to be in breach of its registration agreement), and (iv) the implausibility of any good faith use to which the domain name may be put.”
In the present case, Complainant’s trademark is well known. It is difficult to envisage any use of the disputed domain name that would not violate the Policy, see Morgan Stanley v. TONY / shentony, FA 1637186 (Forum Oct. 10, 2015) (“Respondent registered the disputed domain name [MORGANSTANLEY.ONLINE] in bad faith because . . . it is difficult to envisage any use of the disputed domain name that would not violate the Policy”); see also Singapore Airlines Ltd. v. European Travel Network, D2000-0641 (WIPO Aug. 29, 2000) (where selection of disputed domain name is so obviously connected to complainant’s well-known trademark, use by someone with no connection with complainant suggests opportunistic bad faith); see also Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc., Sheraton Int’l IP, LLC, Westin Hotel Mgmt., L.P. v. Jingjing Tang, D2014-1040 (WIPO Aug. 19, 2014) (“The Panel finds that the [WESTIN] Marks are not such that could legitimately be adopted by traders other than for the purpose of creating an impression of an association with Complainant. Thus, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain names were registered in bad faith”).
There has been no response to the Complaint. Given these circumstances, the Panel finds that, in this particular case, a finding of bad faith use can be inferred even though the disputed domain name is not being actively used. See Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, D2000-0003 (WIPO Feb. 18, 2000).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <commscope.ai> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Richard Hill, Panelist
Dated: June 13, 2023
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page