Charter Communications Holding Company, LLC v. Ankur Gupta
Claim Number: FA2306002049893
Complainant is Charter Communications Holding Company, LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Julie Kent of Holland & Hart LLP, Colorado, USA. Respondent is Ankur Gupta (“Respondent”), India.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <spectrum-business.live>, registered with Hostinger, UAB.
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 20, 2023; Forum received payment on June 20, 2023.
On June 21, 2023, Hostinger, UAB confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <spectrum-business.live> domain name is registered with Hostinger, UAB and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Hostinger, UAB has verified that Respondent is bound by the Hostinger, UAB 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 22, 2023, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 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@spectrum-business.live. Also on June 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 July 19, 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.
A. Complainant
Complainant contends as follows:
Complainant, Charter Communications Holding Company, LLC, is a telecommunications company providing cable television, internet, phone, and related telecommunications services under the SPECTRUM name.
Complainant asserts rights to the SPECTRUM mark based upon registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”).
Respondent’s <spectrum-business.live> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark as it contains the SPECTRUM mark in its entirety, merely adding the generic term “business,” a hyphen, and the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.live” to form the domain name.
Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <spectrum-business.live> domain name. Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant’s SPECTRUM mark and is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name. Respondent does not use the at-issue domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to pass off as Complainant. Additionally, Respondent is inactively holding the at-issue domain name. Moreover, Respondent may use the at-issue domain name to engage in an email phishing scheme.
Respondent registered and uses the <spectrum-business.live> domain name in bad faith. Respondent registered and uses the at-issue domain name to pass off as Complainant. Additionally, Respondent is inactively holding the at-issue domain name showing bad faith registration and use. Furthermore, Respondent may use the at-issue domain name in furtherance of an email phishing scheme. Finally, Respondent registered and uses the at-issue domain name with constructive and/or actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the SPECTRUM mark.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant has trademark rights in SPECTRUM.
Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and is not authorized to use the SPECTRUM mark in any capacity.
Respondent registered the at‑issue domain name after Complainant acquired trademark rights in SPECTRUM.
Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to address a website where Respondent poses as Complainant and purports to offer services that are offered by Complainant under the SPECTRUM trademark.
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 SPECTRUM mark with the USPTO or any other bona fide trademark registrar worldwide demonstrates Complainant’s rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Haas Automation, Inc. v. Jim Fraser, FA 1627211 (Forum Aug. 4, 2015) (finding that Complainant’s USPTO registrations for the HAAS mark sufficiently demonstrate its rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)).
Respondent’s <spectrum-business.live> domain name contains Complainant’s SPECTRUM trademark followed by an irrelevant hyphen and the term “business” with all followed by the “.live” top-level domain. Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) the differences between Respondent’s domain name and Complainant’s trademark do nothing to distinguish one from the other. Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent’s <spectrum-business.live> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s SPECTRUM trademark. See Microsoft Corporation v. Thong Tran Thanh, FA 1653187 (Forum Jan. 21, 2016) (determining that confusing similarity exists where [a disputed domain name] contains Complainant’s entire mark and differs only by the addition of a generic or descriptive phrase and top-level domain, the differences between the domain name and its contained trademark are insufficient to differentiate one from the other for the purposes of the Policy).
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 “Ankur Gupta” and the record before the Panel contains no evidence tending to prove that Respondent is commonly known by the <spectrum-business.live> domain name. The Panel therefore concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by <spectrum-business.live> for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See also, Radio Flyer Inc. v. er nong wu, FA 2011001919893 (Forum Dec. 16, 2020) (“Here, the WHOIS information lists “er nong wu” as the registrant and no information suggests Complainant has authorized Respondent to use the RADIO FLYER mark in any way. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).”).
Respondent uses its <spectrum-business.live> domain name to address a website that displays Complainant’s trademarks and is dressed to look as if it is Complainant’s genuine website. Notably, Respondent’s bogus website purports to offer products that Complainant’s offers under its SPECTRUM mark. The website is designed to give visitors the false impression that it is affiliated with or authorized by Complainant. Respondent’s use of the domain name in this manner constitutes 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 ShipChain, Inc. v. 谢东东 / 谢东东, FA 1785189 (Forum June 21, 2018) (“The resolving webpages between Complainant’s and Respondent’s websites are virtually the same. Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name does not confer rights and legitimate interests under Policy ¶¶4(c)(i) and (iii).”); see also iFinex Inc. v. Yuri Hefetz / Genie-Solution, FA 1789385 (Forum July 9, 2018) (holding that the respondent’s mimicking the complainant’s website in order to cause existing or potential customers to falsely believe they are setting up a new account with the complainant is prima facie evidence of the respondent’s lack of rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name); see also, Dell Inc. v. Devesh Tyagi, FA 1785301 (Forum June 2, 2018) (“Respondent replicates Complainant’s website and displays Complainant’s products. The Panel finds that this use is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) & (iii).”); see also, 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).”).
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).
As discussed below without being exhaustive, there is sufficient evidence to allow the Panel to conclude that Respondent acted in bad faith pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
First, Respondent previously used its confusingly similar domain name to direct internet traffic to Respondent’s <spectrum-business.live> website where Respondent poses as Complainant and there offers products that Complainant offers under the SPECTRUM trademark. Such use of the domain name is disruptive to Complainant’s business and capitalizes on the confusion Respondent creates between Complainant’s trademark and Respondent’s domain name and website. Respondent thus registered and is using the at-issue domain name in bad faith pursuant Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Fitness International, LLC v. ALISTAIR SWODECK / VICTOR AND MURRAY, FA1506001623644 (Forum July 9, 2015) (“Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to operate a website that purports to offer health club related services such as fitness experts, fitness models, fitness venues, exercise programs, and personal training, all of which are the exact services offered by Complainant. Doing so causes customer confusion, disrupts Complainant’s business, and demonstrates Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).”); see also, Allianz of Am. Corp. v. Bond, FA 680624 (Forum June 2, 2006) (finding bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the respondent was diverting Internet users searching for the complainant to its own website and likely profiting); see also, 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 Bittrex, Inc. v. Wuxi Yilian LLC, FA 1760517 (Forum Dec. 27, 2017) (finding bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) 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.”).
Respondent holds the at-issue domain name passively. Browsing to <spectrum-business.live> returns an error message indicating that a website is not reachable. Respondent’s inactive holding of <spectrum-business.live> also shows Respondent to have acted in bad faith. See Indiana University v. Ryan G Foo / PPA Media Services, FA1411001588079 (Forum Dec. 28, 2014) (“Under the circumstances, Respondent’s seemingly inutile holding of the at-issue domain name shows Respondent’s bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”); see also Marsh Supermarkets Company, LLC, formerly known as Marsh Supermarkets, Inc. v. Choi Sungyeon, FA1312001532854 (Forum Feb. 25, 2014) (“Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the <marshsupermarkets.com> domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) because Respondent has failed to make an active use of the disputed domain name.”).
Moreover, Respondent registered <spectrum-business.live> knowing that Complainant had trademark rights in SPECTRUM. Respondent’s prior knowledge is evident from the notoriety of Complainant trademark and from Respondent’s use of <spectrum-business.live> to offer Complainant’s products for sale on a website dressed to appear as if sponsored by Complainant. Respondent’s prior knowledge of Complainant's SPECTRUM trademark further indicates that Respondent registered and used the <spectrum-business.live> domain name in bad faith 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").
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <spectrum-business.live> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist
Dated: July 20, 2023
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page