The Ford Meter Box Company v. Yu Sun / Yingying Xie
Claim Number: FA2305002045028
Complainant is The Ford Meter Box Company (“Complainant”), represented by Caitlin R. Byczko of Barnes & Thornburg LLP, Indiana, USA. Respondent is Yu Sun / Yingying Xie (“Respondent”), China.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <fordmetergear.com> and <fordmeterus.com>, registered with Gname.com Pte. 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.
Charles A. Kuechenmeister, Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on May 17, 2023; Forum received payment on May 17, 2023.
On May 18, 2023, Gname.com Pte. Ltd. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <fordmetergear.com> and <fordmeterus.com> domain names (the Domain Names) are registered with Gname.com Pte. Ltd. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Gname.com Pte. Ltd. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Gname.com Pte. 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 May 22, 2023, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint in English and Chinese setting a deadline of June 12, 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@fordmetergear.com, postmaster@fordmeterus.com. Also on May 22, 2023, the English and Chinese 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 20, 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.
Language of Proceedings
According to the Registrar, the registration agreements for the Domain Names are written in Chinese. Rule 11(a) provides that the language of the proceedings is the language of the registration agreement, subject to the authority of the Panel to determine otherwise, having regard to the circumstances of the case. Complainant filed its Complaint in English and requests that these proceedings be conducted in English. Factors which previous panels have seen as important include evidence showing that the respondent can understand the language of the complaint, the language of the domain name, the content on any web pages resolving from the domain name, prior correspondence between the parties, and potential unfairness or unwarranted delay in ordering translation of the pleadings and the Decision. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (WIPO Overview 3.0), at ¶ 4.5.1, 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), 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.”).
In this case, both Domain Names and the websites to which they resolve are written in English (screenshots submitted as Complaint Exhibit D). From this it appears that Respondent is proficient in English, Further, while Complainant filed its Complaint in English, the Written Notice of the Complaint, written in both Chinese and English, was served upon Respondent in accordance with Rules 1 and 2. Respondent has not submitted a Response or any indication that it desires to participate in this proceeding, in the Chinese language or otherwise. Under these circumstances the Panel finds that the additional time and expense of proceeding in Chinese would be unwarranted inasmuch as the only party who might benefit from that has declined to participate. For this reason, the Panel determines that this proceeding will be conducted in English.
Multiple Domain Names and Respondents
The Complaint names two persons as Respondents and relates to two 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.” The WHOIS information furnished to Forum by the registrar lists different names and addresses for each Respondent, and the WHOIS printouts for each Domain Name included in Complaint Exhibit B list different servers for each, but the Exhibit B WHOIS printouts also show that both Domain Names were registered within 14 days of each other with the same registrar, and both Domain Names utilize naming conventions that are sufficiently similar to each other to suggest a common ownership or control among them. Finally, the websites to which both Domain Names resolve are virtually identical, displaying the same materials in virtually the same layout and format. On this evidence, the Panel finds that both 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 both of the named Respondents.
A. Complainant
Complainant is a family-owned manufacturer of waterworks products. It has rights in the FORD and FORD METER BOX marks based upon its registration of those marks with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”). The <fordmetergear.com> and <fordmeterus.com> Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s marks. Both fully incorporate the FORD mark, merely omitting spaces and adding a generic term and the “.com” gTLD, and both incorporate the dominant FORD METER element of the FORD METER BOX mark, merely substituting the term “us” in one case and the term “gear” in the other for the term “box,” omitting spaces and adding the generic top- level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.”
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names. Complainant has not authorized or licensed Respondent to use the FORD and FORD METER BOX marks and Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Names. 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 but instead is using them to host websites that are nearly identical to Complainant’s website and purport to sell Complainant’s products.
Respondent registered and uses the Domain Names in bad faith. It attempts for commercial gain to attract Internet users to its websites by creating confusion with Complainant’s marks as to the source, sponsorship, endorsement or affiliation of its websites. It registered the Domain Names, which incorporate Complainant’s well-known mark while itself having no connection with Complainant, and it registered the Domain Names with actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the FORD and FORD METER BOX marks.
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 as true unless the evidence is clearly contradictory. 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 FORD mark was registered to Complainant with the USPTO (Reg. No. 5,321,199) on October 31, 2017. The FORD METER BOX Mark was registered to Complainant with the USPTO (Reg. No. 5,358,181) on December 19, 2017 (USPTO registration certificates included in Complaint Exhibit C). Complainant’s registration of its marks with the USPTO establishes its rights in those marks 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 <fordmetergear.com> and <fordmeterus.com> Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s marks. Both fully incorporate the FORD mark, merely omitting spaces and adding a generic term and the “.com” gTLD, and both incorporate the dominant FORD METER element of the FORD METER BOX mark, merely substituting a generic term for the term “box,” omitting a space and adding the “.com” gTLD. These changes do not distinguish the Domain Names from Complainant’s marks for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). MTD Products Inc v J Randall Shank, FA 1783050 (Forum June 27, 2018) (“The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark as it wholly incorporates the CUB CADET mark before appending the generic terms ‘genuine’ and ‘parts’ as well as the ‘.com’ gTLD.”), 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 marks are clearly recognizable within the Domain Names.
For the reasons set forth above, the Panel finds that the Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar to the FORD and FORD METER BOX marks, 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) Complainant has not authorized or licensed Respondent to use the FORD or FORD METER BOX marks, (ii) Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Names, and (iii) it 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 is using them to host websites that are nearly identical to Complainant’s website and purport to sell Complainant’s products. These allegations are addressed as follows:
Complainant states that it has never licensed or authorized Respondent to use its marks. 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 Name 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.”).
The WHOIS information provided to Forum by the registrar lists the registrants of the Domain Names as “Yu Sun” in the case of one and “Yingying Xie” in the case of the other. Neither of these names bears any resemblance to 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. Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Suzen Khan / Nancy Jain / Andrew Stanzy, FA 1741129 (Forum Aug. 16, 2017) (finding that respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed Domain Name when the identifying information provided by WHOIS was unrelated to the Domain Name or respondent’s use of the same), 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 Name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
Complaint Exhibit D contains screenshots of pages of the websites resolving from the Domain Names. All of them prominently display the FORD METER BOX mark, and some of the pages even add the stylized FORD mark in a tapered rectangle used on the pages of Complainant’s website, screenshots of which are submitted as Complaint Exhibit E. They all offer what appear to be the same waterworks products as those offered on Complainant’s website, they have the same layout and general appearance as the pages on Complainant’s website, and all represent themselves as being sponsored by Complainant. Respondent is clearly passing off as and competing with Complainant. Passing off as a complainant and offering to sell a complainant’s products does not qualify as a bona fide offering of goods or services within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or as a legitimate noncommercial or fair use within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). Netflix, Inc. v. Irpan Panjul / 3corp.inc, FA 1741976 (Forum Aug. 22, 2017) (“The usage of Complainant’s NETFLIX mark which has a significant reputation in relation to audio visual services for unauthorised audio visual material is not fair as the site does not make it clear that there is no commercial connection with Complainant and this amounts to passing off . . . As such the Panelist finds that Respondent does not have rights or a legitimate interest in the Domain Name.”), 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).”).
Complainant has made its prima facie case. On the evidence presented, 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 the foregoing grounds articulated in the Policy and upon additional grounds adopted by UDRP panels over the years. First, by passing off as Complainant and without authorization purporting to sell Complainant’s products, Respondent is clearly using the confusingly similar Domain Names to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s marks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of its website. The evidence does not disclose whether Respondent is actually selling the products advertised on its website or fraudulently representing that it does, collecting money from the customer and then not delivering the goods. Regardless of which scenario is present here, Respondent’s conduct fits squarely within the circumstances described in Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) and is manifest evidence of bad faith registration and use. Xylem Inc. and Xylem IP Holdings LLC v. YinSi BaoHu YiKaiQi, FA1504001612750 (Forum May 13, 2015) (“The Panel agrees that Respondent’s use of the website to display products similar to Complainant’s, imputes intent to attract Internet users for commercial gain, and finds bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).”).
As discussed above, Respondent is using the Domain Names to pass off as Complainant. This does not fit precisely within any of the scenarios listed in Policy ¶ 4(b) but that paragraph recognizes 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. Worldcom Exchange, Inc. v. Wei.com, Inc., WIPO Case No. D-2004-0955. The non-exclusive nature of Policy ¶ 4(b) allows for consideration of additional factors in an analysis for bad faith, and passing off as a complainant, in and of itself, is evidence of bad faith. Bittrex, Inc. v. Wuxi Yilian LLC, FA 1760517 (Forum December 27, 2017) (finding bad faith where “Respondent registered and uses the <lbittrex.com> domain name in bad faith by directing Internet users to a website that mimics Complainant’s own website in order to confuse users into believing that Respondent is Complainant or is otherwise affiliated or associated with Complainant.”).
Next, Respondent registered and is using the Domain Names, which incorporate and are confusingly similar to the FORD and FORD METER BOX marks, but Respondent has no legitimate connection with those marks or their owner, the Complainant. In light of the nonexclusive nature of Policy ¶ 4(b), the use of a domain name that is confusingly similar to a trademark with which the respondent has no connection has frequently been held to be evidence of opportunistic bad faith. Kraft Foods (Norway) v. Wide, D2000-0911 (WIPO Sept. 23, 2000) (“[T]he fact that Respondent chosen [sic] to register a well-known mark to which [it] has no connections or rights indicates that [it] was in bad faith when registering the domain name at issue.”), Google LLC v. Noboru Maruyama / Personal, FA 2001001879162 (Forum March 3, 2020) (“the registration and use of domain name that is confusingly similar to a trademark with which the respondent has no connection has frequently been held to be evidence of bad faith.”).
Finally, it is evident that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant and its marks when it registered the Domain Names in January 2023 (the WHOIS printout submitted as Complaint Exhibit B shows creation dates). Complainant had been using its marks at least since 1911 (USPTO registration certificates included in Complaint Exhibit D show first use in commerce that year). More importantly, Respondent was sufficiently aware of Complainant and its marks to be able virtually to duplicate its website and advertise the same products as those offered by Complainant. The is no question that it had actual knowledge of Complainant and its rights in the FORD and FORD METER BOX marks when it registered the Domain Names. Given 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 first above set forth, 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 <fordmetergear.com> and <fordmeterus.com> Domain Names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Charles A. Kuechenmeister, Panelist
Dated: June 22, 2023
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page