DECISION

 

Charter Communications Holding Company, LLC v. Joyjeet Roy / Globaltel

Claim Number: FA2311002071650

PARTIES

Complainant is Charter Communications Holding Company, LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Julie Kent of Holland & Hart LLP, Colorado, USA. Respondent is Joyjeet Roy / Globaltel ("Respondent"), India.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <spectrumbusiness.online>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.

 

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.

 

Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on November 17, 2023; Forum received payment on November 17, 2023.

 

On November 20, 2023, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <spectrumbusiness.online> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, 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 November 21, 2023, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of December 11, 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@spectrumbusiness.online. Also on November 21, 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 formal response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

 

On December 12, 2023, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Paul M. DeCicco 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 contends as follows:

 

Complainant, Charter Communications Holding Company, LLC, is a telecommunications company providing cable television, internet, phone, and related telecommunications services under the SPECTRUM name.

 

Complainant asserts rights to the SPECTRUM mark based upon registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO").

 

Respondent's <spectrumbusiness.online> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's trademark as it contains Complainant's SPECTRUM mark in its entirety, merely adding the suggestive term "business" and the generic top-level domain ("gTLD") ".online" to form the domain name.

 

Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <spectrumbusiness.online> domain name. Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant's SPECTRUM mark and is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name. Respondent does not use the at-issue domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to direct internet users to a website featuring pay-per-click links.

 

Respondent registered and uses the <spectrumbusiness.online> domain name in bad faith. Respondent registered and uses the at-issue domain host pay-per-click links. Respondent may use the at-issue domain name in furtherance of an email phishing scheme in the future. Finally, Respondent registered and uses the at-issue domain name with constructive and/or actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the SPECTRUM mark.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a formal Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant has trademark rights in SPECTRUM.

 

Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and is not authorized to use the SPECTRUM mark in any capacity.

 

Respondent registered the at‑issue domain name after Complainant acquired trademark rights in SPECTRUM.

 

Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to address a website hosting 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 at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.

 

Complainant's registration of the SPECTRUM mark with the USPTO or any other bona fide trademark registrar worldwide demonstrates Complainant's rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Haas Automation, Inc. v. Jim Fraser, FA 1627211 (Forum Aug. 4, 2015) (finding that Complainant's USPTO registrations for the HAAS mark sufficiently demonstrate its rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)).

 

Respondent's <spectrumbusiness.online> domain name contains Complainant's SPECTRUM trademark followed by the term "business" with all followed by the ".online" top-level domain. Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) the differences between Respondent's domain name and Complainant's trademark do nothing to distinguish one from the other. Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent's <spectrumbusiness.online> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's SPECTRUM trademark. See Microsoft Corporation v. Thong Tran Thanh, FA 1653187 (Forum Jan. 21, 2016) (determining that confusing similarity exists where [a disputed domain name] contains Complainant's entire mark and differs only by the addition of a generic or descriptive phrase and top-level domain, the differences between the domain name and its contained trademark are insufficient to differentiate one from the other for the purposes of the Policy).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm't Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006). Since Respondent failed to respond, Complainant's prima facie showing acts conclusively.

 

Respondent lacks both rights and legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant's trademark in any capacity and, as discussed below, there are no Policy ¶ 4(c) circumstances from which the Panel might find that Respondent has rights or interests in respect of the at‑issue domain name. See Navistar International Corporation v. N Rahmany, FA1505001620789 (Forum June 8, 2015) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name where the complainant had never authorized the respondent to incorporate its NAVISTAR mark in any domain name registration).

 

The WHOIS information for the at-issue domain name identifies the domain name's registrant as "Joyjeet Roy" and the record before the Panel contains no evidence tending to prove that Respondent is commonly known by the <spectrumbusiness.online> domain name. The Panel therefore concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by <spectrumbusiness.online> for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See also, Radio Flyer Inc. v. er nong wu, FA 2011001919893 (Forum Dec. 16, 2020) ("Here, the WHOIS information lists "er nong wu" as the registrant and no information suggests Complainant has authorized Respondent to use the RADIO FLYER mark in any way. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).").

 

Respondent uses its <spectrumbusiness.online> domain name to address a website that displays pay-per-click links to third parties. Respondent's use of the domain name in this manner constitutes neither a bona fide  offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a non-commercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Insomniac Holdings, LLC v. Mark Daniels, FA 1735969 (Forum July 15, 2017) ("Respondent's use of <edcorlando.xyz> also does not qualify as a bona fide offering… the <edcorlando.xyz> domain name resolves to a site containing pay-per-click hyperlinks and advertisements… Since these kinds of advertisements generate revenue for the holder of a domain name, they cannot be noncommercial; further, they do not qualify as a bona fide offering.").

 

Given the forgoing, Complainant satisfies its initial burden and demonstrates Respondent's lack of rights and lack of legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

As discussed below without being exhaustive, bad faith circumstances are present that allow the Panel to conclude that Respondent acted in bad faith pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.

 

Respondent's use of the confusingly similar at-issue domain name to address a webpage displaying what appear to be pay-per-click links is disruptive to Complainant's business and shows that Respondent is attempting to attract internet users for commercial gain by impermissibly trading off Complainant's SPECTRUM trademark. Notably, using the domain name to host third party links demonstrates Respondent's bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Vivint, Inc. v. Online Management, FA1403001549084 (Forum Apr. 23, 2014) (holding that the respondent had registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith according to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the disputed domain name resolved to a parking page that featured no content besides sponsored advertisements and links).

 

Moreover, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the SPECTRUM mark when it registered <spectrumbusiness.online> as a domain name. Respondent's actual knowledge is evident from the notoriety of Complainant's trademark. Respondent's registration and use of the confusingly similar <spectrumbusiness.online> domain name with knowledge of Complainant's rights in SPECTRUM further shows Respondent's bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name).

 

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 <spectrumbusiness.online> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist

Dated: December 12, 2023