DECISION

 

Mediacom Communications Corporation v. 杨智超

Claim Number: FA2311002070424

PARTIES

Complainant is Mediacom Communications Corporation ("Complainant"), represented by Robert M. Wasnofski, Jr. of Dentons US LLP, Illinois, USA. Respondent is 杨智超 ("Respondent"), China.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <medaicom.com>, (the "Domain Name") registered with Xin Net Technology Corporation.

 

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.

 

Dawn Osborne as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on November 9, 2023; Forum received payment on November 9, 2023.

 

On November 12, 2023, Xin Net Technology Corporation confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <medaicom.com> Domain Name is registered with Xin Net Technology Corporation and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Xin Net Technology Corporation has verified that Respondent is bound by the Xin Net Technology Corporation 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 November 14, 2023, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Chinese and English Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of December 4, 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@medaicom.com. Also on November 14, 2023, the Chinese and English 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 December 5, 2023 pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Dawn Osborne 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.

 

PRELIMINARY ISSUE: LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDING

Pursuant to UDRP Rule 11(a), the Panel finds that persuasive evidence has been adduced by Complainant to suggest the likely possibility that the Respondent is conversant and proficient in the English language as the Respondent has attached an English language web site to the Domain Name. After considering the circumstance of the present case, the Panel decides that the proceeding should be in English.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

The Complainant is the owner of the mark MEDIACOM, registered, inter alia, in the USA for cable transmission services with first use recorded as 1995.

 

The Domain Name registered in 2023 is confusingly similar to the Complainant's mark merely transposing the letters 'i' and 'a' in the Complainant's mark and adding the gTLD .com neither of which prevents said confusing similarity.

 

The Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, is not commonly known by it and is not authorised by the Complainant.

 

The Domain Name has been used for commercial pay per click links. The Respondent's use is not a bona fide offering of services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.

 

The Domain Name has been registered and used in opportunistic bad faith to take advantage of the Complainant's trade mark to confuse Internet users for commercial gain and to disrupt the Complainant's business. Typosquatting is bad faith per se.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

The Complainant is the owner of the mark MEDIACOM, registered, inter alia, in the USA for cable transmission services with first use recorded as 1995.

 

The Domain Name registered in 2023 has been used for commercial pay per click links.

 

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 Domain Name in this Complaint combines a sign confusingly similar to the Complainant's MEDIACOM mark (registered, inter alia, in the USA for cable services with first use recorded as 1995), merely transposing the letter 'i' and 'a' and adding the gTLD .com.

 

The Panel agrees that misspellings such as the transposition of two letters does not distinguish the Domain Name from the Complainant's trade mark pursuant to the Policy. See Capital One Financial Corp. v. Huang Li Technology Corp c/o Dynadot, FA 1620197 (Forum June 16, 2015) (finding confusing similarity where the respondent misspelled the word "bank" by transposing the letters "a" and "n," attached the gTLD ".com," and eliminated spacing with respect to the CAPITAL ONE BANK mark to create the <capitalonebnak.com> domain name.). Accordingly the Panel holds that the transposition of the letter 'i' and 'a' in the Domain Name does not prevent confusing similarity between it and the Complainant's mark.

 

A gTLD such as .com does not prevent confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the Complainant's mark per Policy 4(a)(i). See Red Hat Inc v Haecke FA 726010 (Forum July 24, 2006) (concluding that the redhat.org domain name is identical to the complainant's red hat mark because the mere addition of the gTLD was insufficient to differentiate the disputed domain name from the mark).

 

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a mark in which the Complainant has rights for the purpose of the Policy.

 

As such the Panel holds that Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been satisfied.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant has not authorised the use of its mark. There is no evidence or reason to suggest the Respondent is, in fact, commonly known by the Domain Name. See Alaska Air Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines v. Song Bin, FA1408001574905 (Forum September 17, 2014) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name as demonstrated by the WHOIS information and based on the fact that the complainant had not licensed or authorized the respondent to use its ALASKA AIRLINES mark). The use of the Domain Name is commercial and so cannot be legitimate noncommercial fair use.

 

The web site attached to the Domain Name points to commercial pay per click links. It does not make it clear that there is no commercial connection with the Complainant. The Panel finds this use is confusing. As such it cannot amount to the bona fide offering of goods and services. See Vance Int'l Inc v Abend, FA 0970871 (Forum June 8, 2007)(Concluding that the operation of a pay per click web site at a confusingly similar domain name does not represent a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, regardless of whether or not the links resolve to competing or unrelated websites or if the respondent is itself commercially benefitting from the click through fees.)

 

The Domain Name also appears to be a typosquatting registration differing by only the transposition of one letter from the Complainant's mark. Typosquatting is also an indication of a lack of rights or a legitimate interests. See Chegg Inc. v. yang qijin, FA1503001610050 (Forum Apr. 23, 2015) ("Users might mistakenly reach Respondent's resolving website by misspelling Complainant's mark. Taking advantage of Internet users' typographical errors, known as typosquatting, demonstrates a respondent's lack of rights or legitimate interests under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).").

 

The Respondent has not answered this Complaint and has not rebutted the prima face case evidenced by the Complainant as set out herein.

 

As such the Panelist finds that the Respondent does not have rights or a legitimate interest in the Domain Name and that the Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

The Domain Name seeks to take advantage of the situation where Internet users may make a typographical error. Typosquatting itself is evidence of relevant bad faith registration and use and disruption of the Complainant's business. See Diners Club int'l Ltd. v Domain Admin ****** It's all in the name ******, FA 156839 (Forum June 23, 2003) (registering a domain name in the hope that Internet users will mistype the Complainant's mark and be taken to the Respondent's site is registration and use in bad faith). Typosquatting also indicates the Respondent had knowledge of the Complainant and its rights. See InfoSpace, Inc. v. Greiner, FA 227653 (Forum Mar. 8, 2004) ("Respondent's domain name is a simple and popular variation of a trademark commonly used by typosquatters …Such a domain name evidences actual knowledge of the underlying mark prior to the registration of the domain name, and as Respondent failed to submit any evidence to counter this inferrence [sic], Respondent's actions evidence bad faith registration of the disputed domain name.").

 

In the opinion of the Panelist, the use made of the Domain Name in relation to the Respondent's site is confusing and disruptive in that visitors to the site might reasonably believe it is connected to or approved by the Complainant as it uses a misspelling of the Complainant's mark that an ordinary Internet user might mistype to point to commercial pay per click links. Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trade mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the web site or services offered on it likely to disrupt the business of the Complainant. See Univ of Houston Sys v Salvia Corp., FA 637920 (Forum Mar 21, 2006).

 

As such, the Panelist believes that the Complainant has made out its case that the Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith and has satisfied the third limb of the Policy under para 4(b)(iii) and (iv).

 

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 <medaicom.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

 

Dawn Osborne, Panelist

Dated: December 6, 2023