Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v. Manvendra Singh
Claim Number: FA2306002050631
Complainant is Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Bradley L. Cohn of Pattishall, McAuliffe, Newbury, Hilliard & Geraldson LLP, Illinois, USA. Respondent is Manvendra Singh ("Respondent"), India.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <ryzenmaster.com>, registered with NameCheap, Inc.
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.
David E. Sorkin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on June 26, 2023; Forum received payment on June 26, 2023.
On June 26, 2023, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by email to Forum that the <ryzenmaster.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 June 28, 2023, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 18, 2023 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via email to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@ryzenmaster.com. Also on June 28, 2023, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the email 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 21, 2023, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed David E. Sorkin 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 is a manufacturer and distributor of computer hardware and software, semiconductor devices, microprocessor chips, and related goods and services. Complainant has sold computer products under the RYZEN trademark since 2017, generating hundreds of millions of US dollars in revenue. Complainant owns United States trademark registrations for RYZEN and AMD RYZEN in standard character form, and registrations for RYZEN in the European Union and many other jurisdictions. Complainant uses a red-and-yellow circle logo with its RYZEN mark in its advertising and product packaging.
The disputed domain name <ryzenmaster.com> was registered in November 2021. The name is registered in the name of a privacy registration service on behalf of Respondent. The domain name is being used for a website that Complainant alleges is attempting to pass off as an official website of Complainant. The website prominently displays Complainant's RYZEN and AMD RYZEN marks and red-and-yellow circle logo. It promotes software developed by Complainant and includes what appear to be pay-per-click advertisements. A statement appears in small type near the bottom of the page to the effect that it "is an unofficial website that meant to resource purpose only." Complainant states that Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name and has not been authorized, licensed, or otherwise permitted to use Complainant's mark.
Complainant contends on the above grounds that the disputed domain name <ryzenmaster.com> is confusingly similar to its RYZEN mark; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
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 Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, § 4.3 (3d ed. 2017), available at http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (dismissing complaint where complainant failed to "produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations").
The disputed domain name <ryzenmaster.com> incorporates Complainant's registered RYZEN trademark, adding the generic term "master" and the ".com" top-level domain. These additions do not substantially diminish the similarity between the domain name and Complainant's mark. See, e.g., Philip Morris Products S.A. v. Domain Administrator / Saeed Farahani, Persian ART, D2021-3662 (WIPO Jan. 27, 2022) (finding <heetsmaster.com> and <iqosmaster.com> confusingly similar to HEETS and IQOS); Dell Inc. v. Domain Admin / Whois Privacy Corp., FA 1943209 (Forum May 27, 2021) (finding <dell-master.com> confusingly similar to DELL); Fair Isaac Corp. v. Dennise Jones, FA 669849 (Forum May 6, 2006) (finding <ficomaster.com> confusingly similar to FICO). The Panel considers the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights.
Under the Policy, the Complainant must first make a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and then the burden shifts to the Respondent to come forward with concrete evidence of such rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Productions, Inc. v. Entertainment Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006).
The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's registered mark without authorization, and it is being used for a website that displays Complainant's marks and otherwise attempts to pass off as an official website of Complainant. Such use does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests under the Policy. See, e.g., Google LLC v. Satyajeet Tiwari, FA 1770944 (Forum Mar. 8, 2018) (finding lack of rights or interests in similar circumstances).
Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name, and Respondent has failed to come forward with any evidence of such rights or interests. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has sustained its burden of proving that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
Finally, Complainant must show that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Under paragraph 4(b)(iii) of the Policy, bad faith may be shown by evidence that Respondent registered the disputed domain name "primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor." Under paragraph 4(b)(iv), bad faith may be shown by evidence that "by using the domain name, [Respondent] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [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 [Respondent's] web site or location or of a product or service on [Respondent's] web site or location."
Respondent used a privacy registration service to register a domain name incorporating Complainant's registered mark and is using the domain name for a website that attempts to pass off as an official website of Complainant. The Panel infers that the website is intended to generate pay-per-click advertising revenue for Respondent and possibly also to disseminate malware or for other fraudulent purposes. Such circumstances are indicative of bad faith registration and use under the Policy. See, e.g., Bitwarden, Inc. v. George Brown, FA 2001866 (Forum July 22, 2022) (finding bad faith where domain name incorporating mark was used to disseminate malware); Google LLC v. Satyajeet Tiwari, supra (finding bad faith where domain name incorporating mark was used to generate advertising revenue). The Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
Having considered the three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <ryzenmaster.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
David E. Sorkin, Panelist
Dated: July 24, 2023
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page