DECISION

 

LightEdge Solutions, Inc. v. Dheeram Kallem / Lightedge Solutions, Inc.

Claim Number: FA2309002061738

 

PARTIES

Complainant is LightEdge Solutions, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Wendy K. Marsh of Nyemaster Goode, P.C., Iowa, USA. Respondent is Dheeram Kallem / Lightedge Solutions, Inc. ("Respondent"), Virginia, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME 

The domain name at issue is <lightedgesol.com>, registered with Google LLC.

 

PANEL

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.

 

Richard Hill as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on September 14, 2023; Forum received payment on September 14, 2023.

 

On September 14, 2023, Google LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <lightedgesol.com> domain name is registered with Google LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Google LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Google LLC 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 September 15, 2023, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of October 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@lightedgesol.com. Also on September 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 October 6, 2023, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Richard Hill 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.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant states that it provides both physical and virtual data hosting solutions across a number of technology platforms, including AWS, IBM, and VMware. From dedicated private infrastructures to flexible cloud delivery models, Complainant's compliant and secure cloud and hosting solutions are designed to meet its clients' business needs. Complainant has been using its LIGHTEDGE trademark with its data management, telecommunications, electronic storage and retrieval of electronic data, and computer virus protection services since at least as early as April 1, 2004. Complainant is the owner of the domain name <lightedge.com> on which it has been advertising its services since 1999. Complainant asserts rights in the LIGHTEDGE mark through its registration in the United States in 2006.

 

Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its LIGHTEDGE mark because it incorporates the mark in its entirety, merely adding the term "sol", which stands for "solutions", which is part of Complainant's business name, together with the generic top level domain ("gTLD") ".com".

 

According to Complainant, Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Respondent been authorized by Complainant to use its LIGHTEDGE mark. Respondent does not use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, the resolving website displays Complainant's company name, together with a message inviting users to click on hyperlinks which may result in the downloading of malware and/or lead to phishing websites.

 

Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent has created a likelihood of confusion as to the source of the resolving website. The resolving website invites users to click on hyperlinks which may result in the downloading of malware or in phishing. Respondent used a privacy service.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant owns the mark LIGHTEDGE and uses it to provide telecommunication services.

 

Complainant's rights in its mark date back to at least 2006.

 

The disputed domain name was registered on November 6, 2022.

 

Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark.

 

The resolving website displays Complainant's company name. There is no content on the resolving website that refers to a legitimate business. A search on the web does not provide any indication that Respondent is operating a legitimate business. MX records have been configured for the disputed domain name.

 

DISCUSSION

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").

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

 

The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's LIGHTEDGE mark in its entirety, merely adding the term "sol", which may stand for "solutions", which is part of Complainant's business name, together with the generic top level domain ("gTLD") ".com". Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), adding a gTLD and/or generic terms and/or relevant or meaningless letters is generally insufficient in differentiating a disputed domain name from the mark it incorporates. See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("Where a relevant trademark is recognisable within a disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element."); see also Vanguard Group Inc. v. Proven Fin. Solutions, FA 572937 (Forum Nov. 18, 2005) (holding that the addition of both the word "advisors" and the gTLD ".com" did not sufficiently alter the disputed domain name to negate a finding of confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)); see also Home Depot Product Authority, LLC v. Angelo Kioussis, FA 1784554 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("The domain name contains the mark in its entirety, with only the addition of the generic letters 'sb' and the digits '2018,' plus the generic Top Level Domain ("gTLD") '.com.'  These alterations of the mark, made in forming the domain name, do not save it from the realm of confusing similarity under the standards of the Policy."). Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

 

Respondent is not authorized or permitted to use Complainant's LIGHTEDGE mark in any way and is not commonly known by the disputed domain name: under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), WHOIS information may be used to determine whether a respondent is known by the disputed domain name. See Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. LY Ta, FA 1789106 (Forum June 21, 2018) (concluding a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name where the complainant asserted it did not authorize the respondent to use the mark, and the relevant WHOIS information indicated the respondent is not commonly known by the domain name). Where the WHOIS is related to the disputed domain name, the Panel may still find the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name if the respondent lacks authorization to use the complainant's mark and the respondent fails to provide affirmative evidence in support of its identity. See Ripple Labs Inc. v. Jessie McKoy / Ripple Reserve Fund, FA 1790949 (Forum July 9, 2018) (finding that, although the respondent listed itself as "Jessie McKoy / Ripple Reserve Fund" in the WHOIS contact information, it did not provide any affirmative evidence to support this identity; combined with the fact that the complainant claimed it did not authorize the respondent to use the mark, the respondent is not commonly known by the domain name). Here, the WHOIS information for the disputed domain name identifies the registrant as "Dheeram Kallem / Lightedge Solutions, Inc." but Respondent provides no affirmative evidence in support of this identity and no evidence in the record suggests Respondent is authorized to use the LIGHTEDGE mark.

 

According to paragraph 4.8 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition ("WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0"), a Panel may conduct limited factual research regarding disputed domain names:

 

Noting in particular the general powers of a panel articulated inter alia in paragraphs 10 and 12 of the UDRP Rules, it has been accepted that a panel may undertake limited factual research into matters of public record if it would consider such information useful to assessing the case merits and reaching a decision.

 

This may include visiting the website linked to the disputed domain name in order to obtain more information about the respondent or its use of the domain name, consulting historical resources such as the Internet Archive (www.archive.org) in order to obtain an indication of how a domain name may have been used in the relevant past, reviewing dictionaries or encyclopedias (e.g., Wikipedia), or accessing trademark registration databases.

 

The Panel has conducted a search on the web and finds no indication that Respondent is operating a legitimate business.

 

Therefore the Panel finds, on the balance of the evidence before it, that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

The resolving website displays Complainant's company name. This indicates an attempt to impersonate Complainant, which is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶4(c)(iii). See Edible Communities v. Thoreau,  FA0803001158554 (Forum Apr. 16, 2008) ("[R]espondent's use of the disputed domain name [<theedibleaustin.com>] to pass itself off as [c]omplainant shows that [r]espondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶4(c)(i) as well as Policy ¶4(c)(iii)."); see also Digg v. Digg , FA0808001220833 (Forum Oct. 9, 2008) (finding no legitimate interest in respondent's use of the domain name <digg-inc.com> because "[r]espondent is attempting to pass itself off as [c]omplainant" and such "actions do not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶4(c)(iii)."). Thus the Panel finds that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).

 

For all the above reasons, the Panel finds that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

 

Complainant alleges that the resolving website invites users to click on hyperlinks which may result in the downloading of malware or in phishing. It cites an Exhibit to support that allegation, but the Exhibit is not contained in the case file. The Panel could issue a procedural order to request production of the missing Exhibit. However, since, as discussed below, other elements are dispositive for the instant case, the Panel finds that it does not need to request production of the missing Exhibit.

 

Respondent (who did not reply to Complainant's contentions) has not presented any plausible explanation for its use of Complainant's mark. In accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel shall draw such inferences from Respondent's failure to reply as it considers appropriate. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent did not have a legitimate use in mind when registering the disputed domain name.

 

Indeed, as already noted, the resolving website attempts to impersonate Complainant. This can evince bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See American International Group, Inc. v. Walter Busby d/b/a AIG Mergers and Acquisitions, FA0304000156251 (Forum May 30, 2003) (the resolving website gave every appearance of being associated or affiliated with Complainant's business); see also Mortgage Research Center LLC v. Russell Miranda, FA0705000993017 (Forum July 9, 2007) (Respondent is implying an affiliation with Complainant, and consumers seeking Complainant's products and services may become confused when encountering Respondent's website).

 

Further, also as noted above, the Panel may conduct limited factual research regarding disputed domain names. The Panel has determined that there are MX records for the disputed domain name. Therefore it is possible that Respondent may intend to use it in connection with emails for phishing, which would further support a finding of bad faith registration and use. See Microsoft Corporation v. Terrence Green / Whois Agent / Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc., FA 1661030 (Forum Apr. 4, 2016) (finding the Respondent's use of the disputed domain names to send fraudulent emails supported a finding of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)).

 

As already noted, there is nothing in the record to indicate that Respondent is operating a legitimate business at the resolving website; the resolving website displays Complainant's business name, thus impersonating Complainant; there is no content on the resolving website that refers to a legitimate business; the disputed domain name was registered eleven months ago; and MX records have been configured for the disputed domain name. On the basis of the record for the instant case, it is difficult to understand why Respondent would set up the resolving website without using it to promote a legitimate business, and configure MX records, unless it intended to use the disputed domain name in furtherance of phishing. Given Respondent's failure to reply, the Panel finds, on the balance of probabilities, that Respondent likely intends to use the disputed domain name in furtherance of phishing.

 

For all the above reasons the Panel finds, on the balance of the evidence before it, that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

DECISION

Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <lightedgesol.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Richard Hill, Panelist

Dated: October 6, 2023