Mediacom Communications Corporation v. zhang wei
Claim Number: FA2306002048249
Complainant is Mediacom Communications Corporation (“Complainant”), represented by Robert M. Wasnofski of Dentons US LLP, Illinois, USA. Respondent is zhang wei (“Respondent”), CN.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <medacomcable.com>, registered with Alibaba Cloud Computing (Beijing) Co., 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.
Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on June 8, 2023; Forum received payment on June 8, 2023.
On June 8, 2023, Alibaba Cloud Computing (Beijing) Co., Ltd. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <medacomcable.com> domain name is registered with Alibaba Cloud Computing (Beijing) Co., Ltd. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Alibaba Cloud Computing (Beijing) Co., Ltd. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Alibaba Cloud Computing (Beijing) Co., 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 June 13, 2023, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 3, 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@medacomcable.com. Also on June 13, 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 July 12, 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 name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
PRELIMINARY ISSUE: LANGUAGE OF PROCEEDING
Notwithstanding that the Registration Agreement is written in Chinese, pursuant to UDRP Rule 11(a) the Panel finds that persuasive evidence has been proffered by Complainant to suggest the likely possibility that the Respondent is conversant and proficient in the English language and that going forward in Chinese would present an undue burden on Complainant. After considering the circumstances of the present dispute including Respondent’s failure to respond, the Panel concludes that the proceeding should be in English.
A. Complainant
Complainant contends as follows:
Complainant is one of America’s largest cable television companies.
Complainant asserts rights in the MEDIACOM Mark based upon registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”).
Complainant also asserts common law rights in the MEDIACOM Mark. The <medacomcable.com> domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s Mark because the at-issue domain name differs from Complainant’s MEDIACOM Mark by only one omitted letter “i” and the addition of the generic term “cable”. The at-issue domain name also adds the generic top level domain (“gTLD”) “.com”.
Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <medacomcable.com> domain name. Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use the MEDIACOM mark and is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name. Additionally, Respondent does not use the domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent has made no demonstrable preparations to use the at-issue domain name, but rather redirects Internet uses to a website containing pay-per-click hyperlinks.
Respondent registered and uses the <medacomcable.com> domain name in bad faith. Respondent’s domain name directs users to a website containing pay-per-click links. Respondent is disrupting Complainant’s business. Respondent has failed to respond to cease and desist communications. Lastly, Respondent registered the at-issue domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the MEDIACOM Mark.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant has trademark rights in the MEDIACOM mark.
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 MEDIACOM trademark.
Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to host pay-per-click links.
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 name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.
Complainant’s registration of the MEDIACOM mark with the USPTO sufficiently demonstrates 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).”).
Respondent’s <medacomcable.com> domain name contains a misspelling of Complainant’s MEDIACOM where the mark’s “I” is omitted, followed by the suggestive terms “cable”, and with all followed by the “.com” top-level domain name. Respondent’s alterations to Complainant’s trademark in creating the at-issue domain name fail to distinguish the domain name from Complainant’s MEDIACOM trademark. Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent’s <medacomcable.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s MEDIACOM trademark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Klein Tools, Inc. v chenxinqi, FA 1617328 (Forum July 6, 2018) (finding that the <klentools.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the KLEIN TOOLS mark as it contains the entire KLEIN TOOLS mark and merely omits the letter “l” and adds the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”)); see also 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.”).
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). Since Respondent failed to respond, Complainant’s prima facie showing acts conclusively.
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. See Navistar International Corporation v. N Rahmany, FA1505001620789 (Forum June 8, 2015) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name where the complainant had never authorized the respondent to incorporate its NAVISTAR mark in any domain name registration).
The WHOIS information for the at-issue domain name identifies the domain name’s registrant as “zhang wei” and the record before the Panel contains no evidence tending to prove that Respondent is commonly known by the <medacomcable.com> domain name. The Panel therefore concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by <medacomcable.com> for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Google LLC v. Bhawana Chandel / Admission Virus, FA 1799694 (Forum Sep. 4, 2018) (concluding that Respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name where “the WHOIS of record identifies the Respondent as “Bhawana Chandel,” and no information in the record shows that Respondent was authorized to use Complainant’s mark in any way.”).
Respondent’s <medacomcable.com> domain name refers a webpage displaying generic pay-per-click hyperlinks some of which related to services promoted by Complainant under its MEDIACOM trademark. Respondent use of the domain name in this manner shows neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4 (c)(i), nor a non-commercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Insomniac Holdings, LLC v. Mark Daniels, FA 1735969 (Forum July 15, 2017) (”Respondent’s use of <edcorlando.xyz> also does not qualify as a bona fide offering… the <edcorlando.xyz> domain name resolves to a site containing pay-per-click hyperlinks and advertisements… Since these kinds of advertisements generate revenue for the holder of a domain name, they cannot be noncommercial; further, they do not qualify as a bona fide offering.”).
Given the forgoing, Complainant satisfies its initial burden and demonstrates Respondent’s lack of rights and lack of legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name under Policy ¶4(a)(ii).
The at-issue domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. As discussed below without being exhaustive, there is evidence from which the Panel may conclude that Respondent acted in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
As mentioned above regarding rights and legitimate interests, Respondent is using its confusingly similar <medacomcable.com> domain name to address a website displaying pay-per-click hyperlinks. Using the domain name in such manner is disruptive to Complainant’s business, takes advantage of the confusion between the at-issue domain name and Complainant’s trademark, and indicates Respondent’s bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See 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, Adorama, Inc. v. Moniker Privacy Services, FA1503001610020 (Forum May 1, 2015) (“Respondent uses pay-per-click hyperlinks on the resolving website, which redirects users to competing websites. The use of hyperlinks to disrupt and compete with a complainant’s business is evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).”); see also Transamerica Corporation v. Carolina Rodrigues / Fundacion Comercio Electronico, FA 1798316 (Forum Aug. 20, 2018) (“Respondent's use of the domain name to link to competitors of Complainant, presumably generating pay-per-click or referral fees for Respondent, is indicative of bad faith under paragraphs 4(b)(iii) and 4(b)(iv).”).
Moreover, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the MEDIACOM mark when Respondent registered <medacomcable.com> as a domain name. Respondent’s actual knowledge is apparent given the mark’s long term use as well as from the similarity between the domain name and Complainant’s genuine domain name, i.e. <mediacomcable.com>. 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).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <medacomcable.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist
Dated: July 12, 2023
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page