CommScope, Inc. of North Carolina v. lin caishen
Claim Number: FA2308002057274
Complainant is CommScope, Inc. of North Carolina (“Complainant”), represented by William Schultz of Merchant & Gould, P.C., Minnesota, USA. Respondent is lin caishen (“Respondent”), Cambodia.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <ampcommscope.com>, registered with Gname 029 Inc.
PANEL
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.
Alan L. Limbury, as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on August 11, 2023. Forum received payment on August 11, 2023.
On August 13, 2023, Gname 029 Inc confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <ampcommscope.com> domain name is registered with Gname 029 Inc and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Gname 029 Inc has verified that Respondent is bound by the Gname 029 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 August 15, 2023, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 5, 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@ampcommscope.com. Also on August 15, 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 September 6, 2023, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Alan L. Limbury 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, CommScope, Inc., offers a wide range of services under the COMMSCOPE mark, including broadband solutions, enterprise solutions and wireless solutions. Complainant also provides antennas, cables, connectors and networking systems. Its website is located at “www.commscope.com”.
Complainant has rights in the COMMSCOPE mark through numerous trademark registrations, including with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”). Respondent’s <ampcommscope.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s COMMSCOPE mark.
Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the <ampcommscope.com> domain name since Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant’s COMMSCOPE mark and there is no evidence to suggest that Respondent is commonly known by that name. Additionally, Respondent does not use the domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use.
Respondent registered the <ampcommscope.com> domain name in bad faith with actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the COMMSCOPE mark and did so to trade upon the goodwill associated with Complainant’s COMMSCOPE mark. There is no other reason to register a domain name that is identical to Complainant’s coined term COMMSCOPE other than to trade on Complainant’s rights.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
FINDINGS
Complainant has established all the elements entitling it to relief.
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."
(i) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
(ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(iii) 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 as 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 Panel finds as follows with respect to the matters at issue in this proceeding.
Identical and/or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has shown that it has rights in the COMMSCOPE mark through numerous registrations, including with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 1865198, registered on November 29, 1994). The Panel finds Respondent’s <ampcommscope.com> domain name to be confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark, only differing by the addition of the term “amp,” which is associated with one of Complainant’s product lines and does not distinguish the domain name from the mark. The inconsequential “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) may be ignored. See, for example, Rollerblade, Inc. v. Chris McCrady, WIPO Case No. D2000-0429.
Complainant has established this element.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
(i) before any notice to Respondent of the dispute, the use by Respondent of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or
(ii) Respondent (as an individual, business or other organization) has been commonly known by the domain name, even if Respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
(iii) Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert customers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.
The <ampcommscope.com> domain name was registered on August 4, 2023, many years after Complainant has shown that its COMMSCOPE mark and its AMP line of products had become very well-known. It does not resolve to an active website.
These circumstances, together with Complainant’s assertions, are sufficient to constitute a prima facie showing of absence of rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name on the part of Respondent. The evidentiary burden therefore shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the <ampcommscope.com> domain name. See JUUL Labs, Inc. v. Dryx Emerson / KMF Events LTD, FA1906001849706 (Forum July 17, 2019). Respondent has made no attempt to do so.
The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name.
Complainant has established this element.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out some circumstances which shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. As noted in the WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0, Section 3.1, those circumstances are not exclusive and a complainant may demonstrate bad faith under paragraph 4(a)(iii) by showing that a respondent seeks to take unfair advantage of, abuse, or otherwise engage in behavior detrimental to the complainant’s trademark.
In the absence of any Response, the circumstances set out above in relation to the second element, together with the use of the word “amp” in the domain name, satisfy the Panel that Respondent was fully aware of Complainant’s very well-known COMMSCOPE mark and its AMP line of products when Respondent registered the <ampcommscope.com> domain name and that Respondent did so in bad faith with intent to take unfair advantage of Complainant’s mark.
Although the <ampcommscope.com> domain name does not resolve to an active website, as in the leading case of Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003, there is no conceivable active use that could be made of the domain name that would not amount to an infringement of Complainant’s rights in its COMMSCOPE mark. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent’s passive use of the domain name demonstrates registration and use in bad faith.
Complainant has established this element.
DECISION
Complainant having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <ampcommscope.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Alan L. Limbury, Panelist
Dated: September 7, 2023.
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page