Charter Communications Holding Company, LLC v. Polyakov Andrey
Claim Number: FA2305002045080
Complainant is Charter Communications Holding Company, LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Julie Kent of Holland & Hart LLP, Colorado, USA. Respondent is Polyakov Andrey (“Respondent”), Ukraine.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <spectrumtvfree.com>, registered with NameCheap, Inc.
The undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on May 17, 2023; Forum received payment on May 17, 2023.
On May 18, 2023, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <spectrumtvfree.com> domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameCheap, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameCheap, 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 May 22, 2023, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, 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@spectrumtvfree.com. Also on May 22, 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 19, 2023, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Sandra J. Franklin 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
1. Respondent’s <spectrumtvfree.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s SPECTRUM mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <spectrumtvfree.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and uses the <spectrumtvfree.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent did not file a Response.
Complainant, Charter Communications Holding Company, LLC, is a telecommunications company. Complainant holds a registration for the SPECTRUM mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 6,311,602, registered on April 6, 2021).
Respondent registered the <spectrumtvfree.com> domain name on July 25, 2022, and uses it to pass off as and compete with 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 Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the SPECTRUM mark through registration with the USPTO. See Nintendo of America Inc. v. lin amy, FA 1818485 (Forum Dec. 24, 2018) ("Complainant’s ownership a USPTO trademark registration for the NINTENDO mark evidences Complainant’s rights in such mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”).
Respondent’s <spectrumtvfree.com> domain name incorporates Complainant’s SPECTRUM mark and adds the terms “tv” and “free” and the “.com” gTLD. Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), adding generic or descriptive terms and a gTLD to a mark is insufficient to distinguish a disputed domain name from the mark. See 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.”) Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent’s <spectrumtvfree.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s SPECTRUM mark.
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Once Complainant makes a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)); see also 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”).
Complainant argues that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <spectrumtvfree.com> domain name because Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant’s SPECTRUM mark. The WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the registrant as “Polyakov Andrey.” Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and thus has no rights under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Bittrex, Inc. v. Operi Manaha, FA 1815225 (Forum Dec. 10, 2018) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <appbittrex.com> domain name where the WHOIS information listed Respondent as “Operi Manaha,” and nothing else in the record suggested Respondent was authorized to use the BITTREX mark.).
Complainant contends that Respondent does not use the <spectrumtvfree.com> domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a noncommercial or fair use by diverting users to its competing website where it passes off as Complainant. Under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii), passing off and diverting users to a competing webpage is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a noncommercial or fair use. See Invesco Ltd. v. Premanshu Rana, FA 1733167 (Forum July 10, 2017) (“Use of a domain name to divert Internet users to a competing website is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.”); see also Ripple Labs Inc. v. Jessie McKoy / Ripple Reserve Fund, FA 1790949 (Forum July 9, 2018) (finding the respondent did not use the domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services per Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) where the website resolving from the disputed domain name featured the complainant’s mark and various photographs related to the complainant’s business). Complainant provides screenshots of the webpage at <spectrumtvfree.com> showing that Respondent passes off as Complainant and offers competing services. The Panel finds that this is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a noncommercial or fair use, and thus Respondent has no rights under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Complainant argues that Respondent uses the disputed domain name to disrupt its business by offering its competing products. Diverting users to a respondent’s website where it offers competing products is evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See ZIH Corp. v. ou yang lin q, FA1761403 (Forum December 29, 2017) (finding bad faith where Respondent used the infringing domain name to disrupt Complainant’s business by diverting Internet users from Complainant’s website to Respondent’s website where it offered competing printer products). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).
Complainant asserts that Respondent registered and uses the <spectrumtvfree.com> domain name to pass off as Complainant. Using a disputed domain name to pass off as a complainant for financial gain is evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See The Prudential Insurance Company of America v. Henrique Bryan Souza / DATAMIX ENSINO DE INFORMATICA, FA 1718308 (Forum Apr. 3, 2017) (finding bad faith where the respondent used the disputed domain name to resolve to a website upon which the respondent imitated the complainant’s mark, logo, and color scheme to create a “strikingly similar” website); see also Target Brands, Inc. v. JK Internet Servs., FA 349108 (Forum Dec. 14, 2004) (finding bad faith because the respondent not only registered Complainant’s famous TARGET mark, but “reproduced . . . Complainant’s TARGET mark . . . [and] added Complainant’s distinctive red bull’s eye [at the domain name] . . . to a point of being indistinguishable from the original.”). Complainant provides screenshots of the disputed domain name’s resolving website which displays Complainant’s SPECTRUM mark and design logo, and offers services similar to those offered by Complainant. Thus, the Panel finds bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
Complainant contends that Respondent registered and uses the <spectrumtvfree.com> domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the SPECTRUM mark, due to Respondent’s use of the SPECTRUM marks on its website to directly compete with Complainant. The Panel agrees, noting the fame of the SPECTRUM mark, and finds further bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See AutoZone Parts, Inc. v. Ken Belden, FA 1815011 (Forum Dec. 24, 2018) (“Complainant contends that Respondent’s knowledge can be presumed in light of the substantial fame and notoriety of the AUTOZONE mark, as well as the fact that Complainant is the largest retailer in the field. The Panel here finds that Respondent did have actual knowledge of Complainant’s mark, demonstrating bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”); see also Am. Online, Inc. v. Miles, FA 105890 (Forum May 31, 2002) (“Respondent is using the domain name at issue to resolve to a website at which Complainant’s trademarks and logos are prominently displayed. Respondent has done this with full knowledge of Complainant’s business and trademarks. The Panel finds that this conduct is that which is prohibited by Paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.”).
The Panel finds that 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 <spectrumtvfree.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist
Dated: June 20, 2023
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page