T. Rowe Price Group, Inc. v. yang zhi chao
Claim Number: FA2305002045506
Complainant is T. Rowe Price Group, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by AJ Schumacher of Kelly IP, LLP, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is yang zhi chao (“Respondent”), China.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <etroweprice.com>, <gtroweprice.com>, <treowepricm>, <trioweprice.com>, <tropweprice.com>, <troreprice.com>, <trorweprice.com>, <trowedprice.com>, <troweiprice.com>, <trowelprice.com>, <trowenprice.com>, <troweoprice.com>, <troweperice.com>, <troweporice.com>, <trowepraice.com>, <troweprfice.com>, <trowepricec.com>, <trowepricek.com>, <trowepricel.com>, <trowepricer.com>, <trowepricew.com>, <trowepricfe.com>, <trowepricie.com>, <trowepricve.com>, <trowepricxe.com>, <trowepriece.com>, <troweprkce.com>, <troweproice.com>, <troweprpice.com>, <troweprtice.com>, <trowepruice.com>, <troweptrice.com>, <trownprice.com>, <trowperice.com>, <trowpprice.com>, <trowqprice.com>, <trowteprice.com>, <troyeprice.com>, <trwoweprice.com>,<twoweprice.com> and <ytroweprice.com> 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.
Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on May 22, 2023; Forum received payment on May 22, 2023.
On May 24, 2023, Xin Net Technology Corporation confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <etroweprice.com>, <gtroweprice.com>, <treowepricm>, <trioweprice.com>, <tropweprice.com>, <troreprice.com>, <trorweprice.com>, <trowedprice.com>, <troweiprice.com>, <trowelprice.com>, <trowenprice.com>, <troweoprice.com>, <troweperice.com>, <troweporice.com>, <trowepraice.com>, <troweprfice.com>, <trowepricec.com>, <trowepricek.com>, <trowepricel.com>, <trowepricer.com>, <trowepricew.com>, <trowepricfe.com>, <trowepricie.com>, <trowepricve.com>, <trowepricxe.com>, <trowepriece.com>, <troweprkce.com>, <troweproice.com>, <troweprpice.com>, <troweprtice.com>, <trowepruice.com>, <troweptrice.com>, <trownprice.com>, <trowperice.com>, <trowpprice.com>, <trowqprice.com>, <trowteprice.com>, <troyeprice.com>, <trwoweprice.com>, <twoweprice.com> and <ytroweprice.com> domain names are registered with Xin Net Technology Corporation and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. 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 May 24, 2023, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Chinese and English language Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of June 13, 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@etroweprice.com, postmaster@gtroweprice.com, postmaster@treoweprice.com, postmaster@trioweprice.com, postmaster@tropweprice.com, postmaster@troreprice.com, postmaster@trorweprice.com, postmaster@trowedprice.com, postmaster@troweiprice.com, postmaster@trowelprice.com, postmaster@trowenprice.com, postmaster@troweoprice.com, postmaster@troweperice.com, postmaster@troweporice.com, postmaster@trowepraice.com, postmaster@troweprfice.com, postmaster@trowepricec.com, postmaster@trowepricek.com, postmaster@trowepricel.com, postmaster@trowepricer.com, postmaster@trowepricew.com, postmaster@trowepricfe.com, postmaster@trowepricie.com, postmaster@trowepricve.com, postmaster@trowepricxe.com, postmaster@trowepriece.com, postmaster@troweprkce.com, postmaster@troweproice.com, postmaster@troweprpice.com, postmaster@troweprtice.com, postmaster@trowepruice.com, postmaster@troweptrice.com, postmaster@trownprice.com, postmaster@trowperice.com, postmaster@trowpprice.com, postmaster@trowqprice.com, postmaster@trowteprice.com, postmaster@troyeprice.com, postmaster@trwoweprice.com, postmaster@twoweprice.com, postmaster@ytroweprice.com. Also on May 24, 2023, the Chinese and English language 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 Paul M. DeCicco 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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
PRELIMINARY ISSUE: LANGUAGE OF PROCEEDINGS
Notwithstanding that the Registration Agreement is written in Chinese, 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 and that Complainant would be unduly burdened if compelled to proceed in Chinese. After considering the circumstances of the present dispute including Respondent’s failure to respond, the Panel finds that the proceeding should be in English.
A. Complainant
Complainant contends as follows:
Complainant is a world-leading investment management firm with its headquarters in Baltimore, Maryland.
Complainant demonstrates its rights in the T. ROWE PRICE mark based upon registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) as well as with other national registrars. The <etroweprice.com>, <gtroweprice.com>, <treowepricm>, <trioweprice.com>, <tropweprice.com>, <troreprice.com>, <trorweprice.com>, <trowedprice.com>, <troweiprice.com>, <trowelprice.com>, <trowenprice.com>, <troweoprice.com>, <troweperice.com>, <troweporice.com>, <trowepraice.com>, <troweprfice.com>, <trowepricec.com>, <trowepricek.com>, <trowepricel.com>, <trowepricer.com>, <trowepricew.com>, <trowepricfe.com>, <trowepricie.com>, <trowepricve.com>, <trowepricxe.com>, <trowepriece.com>, <troweprkce.com>, <troweproice.com>, <troweprpice.com>, <troweprtice.com>, <trowepruice.com>, <troweptrice.com>, <trownprice.com>, <trowperice.com>, <trowpprice.com>, <trowqprice.com>, <trowteprice.com>, <troyeprice.com>, <trwoweprice.com>, <twoweprice.com> and <ytroweprice.com> domain names are identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark because the at-issue domain names either (i) feature Complainant’s T. ROWE PRICE mark without the punctuation and spacing in the mark (i.e., remove the period after T and the spacing between the three components) and add a single letter at the beginning or end of the mark and add the generic top level domain (“gTLD”) “.com”; or (ii) feature a recognizable misspelled version of Complainant’s T. ROWE PRICE mark, including adding a single letter or switching letters in the middle of the mark, without punctuation and spacing in the mark, and add the gTLD “.com”. Moreover, all of the at-issue domain names are typosquatted versions of T. ROWE PRICE.
Respondent has no legitimate interests in the at-issue domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain names and Complainant has not authorized or licensed Respondent any rights in the T. ROWE PRICE trademark. Additionally, Respondent does not use the at-issue domain names for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to host webpages hosting hyperlinks. Respondent has also engaged in typosquatting.
Respondent registered and uses the at-issue domain name in bad faith. Respondent is creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark. Respondent is passing off as Complainant and hosting hyperlinks on its infringing webpages. Respondent is engaged in typosquatting. Respondent has previously engaged in a pattern of bad faith registration. Additionally, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in T. Rowe Price prior to registration of the at-issue domain name.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant has rights in the T. ROWE PRICE trademark.
Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and had not been authorized to use Complainant’s trademark in any capacity.
Respondent registered the at‑issue domain name after Complainant acquired rights in the T. ROWE PRICE trademark.
Respondent uses the at-issue domain names to host links to third parties some of which are Complainant’s competitors.
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 at-issue domain names are each confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.
Respondent’s USPTO trademark registration for T. ROWE PRICE, as well as any of Respondent’s other national registrations for such mark, is sufficient to demonstrate Complainant’s rights in a mark under 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).”); see also, Emerson Electric Co. v. Cai Jian Lin / Shen Zhen Shi colorsun Zi Dong Hua You Xian Gong Si, FA 1798802 (Forum Aug. 31, 2018) (“Registering a mark with multiple trademark agencies around the world is sufficient to establish rights in a mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”).
Respondent’s at-issue domain names each contain a recognizable misspelled variant of Complainant’s T. ROWE PRICE trademark less its period and less its domain name impermissible space. The domain names all conclude with the “.com” top-level domain name. The differences between any of Respondent’s domain names and Complainant’s trademark are insufficient to distinguish any domain name from Complainant’s T. ROWE PRICE mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent’s at-issue domain names are each confusingly similar to Complainant’s T. ROWE PRICE mark. See MTD Products Inc v. ICS Inc, FA 1721505 (Forum Apr. 18, 2017) (holding that “[t]he removal of the hyphen [from complainant’s TROY-BILT mark in the disputed domain name] is, like most all embedded punctuation, insignificant”); see also Research Now Group, Inc. v. Pan Jing, FA 1735345 (Forum July 14, 2017) (“The … elimination of spacing [is] considered irrelevant when distinguishing between a mark and a domain name.”); Vanguard Trademark Holdings USA LLC v. Shuai Wei Xu / Xu Shuai Wei, FA 1784238 (Forum June 1, 2018) (“Respondent arrives at each of the disputed domain names by merely misspelling each of the disputed domain names and adding the gTLD ‘.com.’ This is insufficient to distinguish the disputed domain names from Complainant’s trademark.”).
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. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006).
Respondent lacks both rights and legitimate interests in respect of each 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 any of the at‑issue domain names. See Charter Communications Holding Company, LLC v. Taha Shaikh / Tskdesigners, FA 1814475 (Forum Nov. 25, 2018) (finding no rights or legitimate interests in <spectrumfeature.com> because complainant never gave respondent permission to use the mark in any manner and “Panels may use these assertions as evidence that no rights or legitimate interests exist in a disputed domain name.”).
The WHOIS information for the at-issue domain names identifies the domain names’ registrant as “Yang Zhi Chao” and the record before the Panel contains no evidence that tends to prove that their registrant is commonly known by one of the at-issue domain names. The Panel therefore concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by any of the at-issue domain names for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Coppertown Drive-Thru Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089 (Forum July 17, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <coppertown.com> domain name where there was no evidence in the record, including the WHOIS information, suggesting that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name).
Respondent’s at-issue domain names are used to address websites offering hyperlinks to third parties including links to Complainant’s competition. Such use is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain names per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See McGuireWoods LLP v. Mykhailo Loginov / Loginov Enterprises d.o.o, FA1412001594837 (Forum Jan. 22, 2015) (“The Panel finds Respondent’s use of the disputed domain names to feature parked hyperlinks containing links in competition with Complainant’s legal services is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), and it is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”).
Given the forgoing, Complainant satisfies its initial burden and shows Respondent’s lack of rights and legitimate interests in the at-issue domain names under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
As discussed below without being exhaustive, bad faith circumstances are present from which the Panel concludes that Respondent registered and used the at-issue domain names in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
As mentioned above regarding rights and legitimate interests, Respondent uses the at-issue domain names to host competitive hyperlinks. Respondent’s use of the confusingly similar at-issue domain names in this manner disrupts Complainant’s business, commercially exploits the confusing similarity that Respondent created between Complainant’s trademark and each of the at-issue domain names, and indicates Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the at-issue domain names under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See American Council on Education and GED Testing Service LLC v. Anthony Williams, FA1760954 (Forum January 8, 2018) (“Respondent’s hosting of links to Complainant’s competitors demonstrates bad faith registration and use of the <geddiploma.org> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)”); see also, Vivint, Inc. v. Online Management, FA1403001549084 (Forum Apr. 23, 2014) (holding that the respondent had registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith according to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the disputed domain name resolved to a parking page that featured no content besides sponsored advertisements and links); see also, Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Bonds, FA 873143 (Forum Feb. 16, 2007) (“The Panel finds such use to constitute bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv), because [r]espondent is taking advantage of the confusing similarity between the <metropolitanlife.us> domain name and Complainant’s METLIFE mark in order to profit from the goodwill associated with the mark.”).
Additionally, Respondent registered the multiple confusingly similar domain names that are now the subject of the instant dispute and has also suffered adverse decisions as a respondent in numerous prior UDRP proceedings. Respondent’s history thus reveals a pattern of domain name abuse that points to Respondent’s bad faith in the instant dispute pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). See Microsoft Corporation and Skype v. zhong biao zhang / Unknown company / zhong zhang, FA1401001538218 (Forum Feb. 20, 2014) (holding that the respondent’s registration of three domain names incorporating variants of the complainant’s SKYPE mark reflected a pattern of bad faith registration under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii)); see also, 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)).
Next, Respondent engages in typosquatting. Typosquatting is a practice whereby a domain name registrant deliberately introduces typographical errors or misspellings into a trademark and then uses the string in a domain name hoping that internet users will inadvertently type the malformed string when searching for products or services associated with the target trademark or will not closely read a misspelled trademark laden domain name and mistakenly confuse it with its target trademark. Although misspelled, Complainant’s T. ROWE PRICE trademark is nevertheless recognizable when reading any of Respondent’s at-issue domain names. Respondent’s typosquatting, in itself, is evidence of Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) bad faith. See Computerized Sec. Sys., Inc. v. Hu, FA 157321 (Forum June 23, 2003) (finding that the respondent engaged in typosquatting, which is evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)); see also, Sports Auth. Mich., Inc. v. Skander, FA 135598 (Forum Jan. 7, 2002) (stating that “[b]y registering the ‘typosquatted’ domain name in [Complainant’s] affiliate program, Respondent profits on the goodwill of [Complainant’s] protected marks and primary Internet domain names,” which is evidence of bad faith registration and use).
Moreover, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the T. ROWE PRICE mark when it registered the at-issue domain names. Respondent’s actual knowledge is evident given the notoriety of Complainant and its trademark as well as from Respondent’s registration of multiple domain names incorporating Complainant’s trademark. Respondent’s registration of multiple confusingly similar domain names with knowledge of Complainant’s trademark rights in T. ROWE PRICE further shows Respondent’s bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name); see also, 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).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <etroweprice.com>, <gtroweprice.com>, <treowepricm>, <trioweprice.com>, <tropweprice.com>, <troreprice.com>, <trorweprice.com>, <trowedprice.com>, <troweiprice.com>, <trowelprice.com>, <trowenprice.com>, <troweoprice.com>, <troweperice.com>, <troweporice.com>, <trowepraice.com>, <troweprfice.com>, <trowepricec.com>, <trowepricek.com>, <trowepricel.com>, <trowepricer.com>, <trowepricew.com>, <trowepricfe.com>, <trowepricie.com>, <trowepricve.com>, <trowepricxe.com>, <trowepriece.com>, <troweprkce.com>, <troweproice.com>, <troweprpice.com>, <troweprtice.com>, <trowepruice.com>, <troweptrice.com>, <trownprice.com>, <trowperice.com>, <trowpprice.com>, <trowqprice.com>, <trowteprice.com>, <troyeprice.com>, <trwoweprice.com>,<twoweprice.com> and <ytroweprice.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist
Dated: June 21, 2023
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page