Mediacom Communications Corporation v. Gary lane
Claim Number: FA2307002054887
Complainant is Mediacom Communications Corporation (“Complainant”), represented by Robert M. Wasnofski,Jr. of Dentons US LLP, Illinois. Respondent is Gary lane (“Respondent”), California, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <onmedlaadsales.com> (“Domain Name”), registered with NameCheap, Inc.
The undersigned certifies that they have acted independently and impartially and to the best of their knowledge have no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Nicholas J.T. Smith as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on July 26, 2023; Forum received payment on July 26, 2023.
On July 31, 2023, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <onmedlaadsales.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 July 31, 2023, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 21, 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@onmedlaadsales.com. Also on July 31, 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 August 22, 2023, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Nicholas J.T. Smith 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 one of American’s largest cable television companies and through its interactive broadband network, offers a variety of advertising and advertising consulting services. Complainant owns rights in the ONMEDIA mark through its registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 3,024,954, registered on December 13, 2005). Respondent’s <onmedlaadsales.com> domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s ONMEDIA mark, as it incorporates the mark in its entirety, only misspelling and replacing the “i” with the letter “l” and adding the generic terms “ad sales” and the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <onmedlaadsales.com> domain name. Complainant has not authorized or licensed Respondent to use the ONMEDIA mark, nor is Respondent commonly known by the Domain Name. Additionally, Respondent is not using the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use as the Domain Name is inactive. Similarly, Respondent engages in typosquatting by intentionally misspelling the ONMEDIA mark in the Domain Name.
Respondent registered and uses the <onmedlaadsales.com> domain name in bad faith. Respondent passively holds the Domain Name with the likely intention to later capitalize on user confusion. Respondent also had actual and constructive notice of Complainant’s rights in the mark, evidenced by the notoriety of Complainant’s mark and the obvious misspelling.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant holds trademark rights for the ONMEDIA mark. The Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ONMEDIA mark. Complainant has established that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the use of the Domain Name and that Respondent registered and has used the Domain Name 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 and 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”).
Complainant has rights in the ONMEDIA mark based on registration with the USPTO (e.g Reg. No. 3,024,954, registered on December 13, 2005). Registration of a mark with the USPTO sufficiently confers a complainant’s rights in a mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Target Brands, Inc. v. jennifer beyer, FA 1738027 (Forum July 31, 2017) ("Complainant has rights in its TARGET service mark for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) by virtue of its registration of the mark with a national trademark authority, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”).”).
The Panel finds that the <onmedlaadsales.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ONMEDIA mark as it consists of a minor misspelling of the ONMEDIA mark (replacing the letter “i” with the letter “l” to create confusion) with the addition of the generic terms “ad sales” and the gTLD “.com”. Adding a generic term and the gTLD “.com” to a minor misspelling of a mark does not negate confusing similarity. See Morgan Stanley v. Francis Mccarthy / Baltec Marine Llc, FA 1785347 (Forum June 8, 2018) (“The [<morganstonley.com> and <morganstainley.com>] Domain Names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s marks, as they fully incorporate the MORGAN STANLEY mark, varying it only by subtle misspellings, omitting a space between the words, and adding the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) ‘.com.’”); 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.”); see also Dell Inc. v. pushpender chauhan, FA 1784548 (Forum June 11, 2018) (“Respondent merely adds the term ‘supports’ and a ‘.org’ gTLD to the DELL mark. Thus, the Panel finds Respondent’s disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s DELL mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”); see also Dell Inc. v. Protection of Private Person / Privacy Protection, FA 1681432 (Forum Aug. 1, 2016) (“A TLD (whether a gTLD, sTLD or ccTLD) is disregarded under a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis because domain name syntax requires TLDs.”).
The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant alleges that Respondent holds no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. In order for Complainant to succeed under this element, it must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the Domain Name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006) and AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Forum Sept. 25, 2006) (“Complainant must first make a prima facie showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names, which burden is light. If Complainant satisfies its burden, then the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain names.”). The Panel holds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case.
Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name as Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name, nor has Complainant authorized Respondent to use the ONMEDIA mark. Respondent has no relationship, affiliation, connection, endorsement or association with Complainant. WHOIS information can help support a finding that a respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, especially where a privacy service has been engaged. See State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Dale Anderson, FA 1613011 (Forum May 21, 2015) (concluding that because the WHOIS record lists “Dale Anderson” as the registrant of the disputed domain name, the respondent was not commonly known by the <statefarmforum.com> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)); see also Kohler Co. v. Privacy Service, FA 1621573 (Forum July 2, 2015) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) where “Privacy Service” was listed as the registrant of the disputed domain name). The WHOIS lists “Gary lane” as registrant of record. Coupled with Complainant’s unrebutted assertions as to absence of any affiliation or authorization between the parties, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name in accordance with Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
The Domain Name is inactive and there is no other evidence of any intention to use the Domain Name for any purpose, be it a bona fide offering or legitimate non-commercial use. In the absence of any additional evidence (none available in the present case) inactive holding of a disputed domain name is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See CrossFirst Bankshares, Inc. v Yu-Hsien Huang, FA 1785415 (Forum June 6, 2018) (“Complainant demonstrates that Respondent fails to actively use the disputed domain name as it resolves to an inactive website. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent fails to actively use the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).”).
The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
The Panel finds on the balance of probabilities that, at the time of registration of the Domain Name, April 13, 2023, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s ONMEDIA mark. The Complainant had, at the time of registration, used the ONMEDIA mark for over 20 years and developed a significant reputation. Furthermore, there is no obvious explanation, nor has one been provided, for an entity to register a domain name that consists of a minor misspelling of the ONMEDIA mark and two words (“ad sales”) that describe the sales or services offered by Complainant under the ONMEDIA mark other than to take advantage of Complainant’s reputation in the ONMEDIA mark. In the absence of rights or legitimate interests of its own this demonstrates registration in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
The Panel notes that the actions of Respondent in this matter do not fall under the arguments set out in Policy ¶ 4(b). However, these arguments are merely illustrative rather than exclusive to support a finding of bad faith. See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Domain Admin - This Domain is For Sale on GoDaddy.com / Trnames Premium Name Services, FA 1714157 (Forum Mar. 8, 2017) (determining that Policy ¶ 4(b) provisions are mere illustrative of bad faith, and that the respondent’s bad faith may be demonstrated by other allegations of bad faith under the totality of the circumstances). It is well accepted that the elements of Policy ¶ 4(b) are not exclusive and that a Panel may consider all of the circumstances of a given case, including passive holding, in making its bad faith analysis. See Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, Case No. D2000-0003 (WIPO Feb. 18, 2000) (after considering all the circumstances of a given case, it is possible that a “[r]espondent’s passive holding amounts to bad faith.”); Regions Bank v. Darla atkins, FA 1786409 (Forum June 20, 2018) (“Respondent registered and is using the domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) because Respondent uses the domain name to host an inactive website.”)
Respondent has, without alternative explanation (or active use), registered a domain name that is very similar to the well-known ONMEDIA mark. Furthermore given the use of the term “ad sales” as part of the Domain Name the only inference that can reasonably be drawn is that the Domain Name is being held pending use as a website that will seek to mislead or deceive customers of Complainant’s advertising sales, services and consulting business who think they will be dealing with Complainant but will actually be dealing with Respondent. Inactive holding of a domain name can be evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) and, after considering the totality of the circumstances (including the inherent nature of the Domain Name) and in the absence of any Response or other explanation for such inactivity by Respondent (or any possible good faith use of the Domain Name by Respondent), the Panel finds that this inactive holding of the Domain Name amounts to use in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
The Panel finds 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 <onmedlaadsales.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Nicholas J.T. Smith, Panelist
Dated: August 23, 2023
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page