DECISION

 

Palantir Technologies Inc. v. Caowei

Claim Number: FA2401002078913

PARTIES

Complainant is Palantir Technologies Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Jonathan Matkowsky of Microsoft Corporation – Microsoft Security, Washington, USA. Respondent is Caowei ("Respondent"), China.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <palantir.xyz>, registered with Xiamen ChinaSource Internet Service Co., Ltd.

 

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 January 12, 2024; Forum received payment on January 15, 2024.

 

On January 17, 2024, Xiamen ChinaSource Internet Service Co., Ltd confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <palantir.xyz> domain name is registered with Xiamen ChinaSource Internet Service Co., Ltd and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Xiamen ChinaSource Internet Service Co., Ltd has verified that Respondent is bound by the Xiamen ChinaSource Internet Service Co., Ltd 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 January 17, 2024, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Chinese and English Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 6, 2024 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@palantir.xyz. Also on January 17, 2024, 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 in Chinese and English.

 

On February 7, 2024, 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.

 

PRELIMINARY ISSUE: LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDING

The relevant Registration Agreement for the at-issue domain is written in Chinese making the favored language of the proceedings also in Chinese. However, pursuant to UDRP Rule 11(a), the Panel may find that there is a likely possibility that the Respondent is conversant and proficient in the English language and further that conducting the proceeding in Chinese would unfairly burden Complainant while conducting the proceeding in English would not unfairly burden Respondent.

 

Respondent's at-issue domain name consists of English characters to conduct business over a website that is in English. Furthermore, Respondent was likely aware that it was targeting Complainant -a party whose website is in English. Additionally, Respondent's email address with Aliyun.com email service contains the truncated English words "fly tiger email," all which have English meaning.

 

Since it appears that Respondent has command of the English language, requiring Complainant to translate all documents of this proceeding into Chinese would result in Complainant having to incur unnecessary additional costs and might well delay the proceeding without any net benefit to Respondent. Moreover, Respondent, although having been given appropriate notice of the instant complaint, has failed to offer any objection to going forward in English. Therefore, in light of all the foregoing, the Panel finds this proceeding should continue in English. 

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant contends as follows:

 

Complainant Palantir Technologies Inc. builds data-driven intelligence applications for complex, high-value government, and commercial use cases.

 

Respondent owns trademark registrations for PALANTIR with multiple national trademark agencies worldwide including the USPTO.

 

Respondent's at-issue domain name is identical to Complainant's PALANTIR trademark as the domain name's top-level is disregarded for similarity analysis.

 

Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the at-issue domain name. Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant in any manner and Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use the at-issue domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name and offers the domain name for sale.

 

Respondent registered and uses the domain name in bad faith. Respondent had knowledge of Complainant and its trademark when it registered the at-issue <palantir.xyz> domain name since Complainant and its trademark received widespread and extensive media coverage for years prior to the domain name's creation. Respondent's registration and use of <palantir.xyz> was so that Respondent might offer it for-sale in excess of its cost and thereby profit off of Complainant's mark.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant has trademark rights in the PALANTIR mark.

 

Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and had not been authorized to use Complainant's trademark in any capacity.

 

Respondent registered the at-issue domain name after Complainant acquired rights in the PALANTIR trademark.

 

Respondent registered and uses the at-issue domain name to offer it for-sale.

 

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 shows that it has USPTO registrations along with other national trademark registrations for its PALANTIR trademark. Any of such registrations is sufficient to demonstrate Complainant's rights in the PALANTIR mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Google LLC v. Bhawana Chandel / Admission Virus, FA 1799694 (Forum Sept. 4, 2018)("Complainant has rights in the GMAIL mark based upon its registration of the mark with numerous trademark agencies around the world.");see also Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Jimmy Yau, FA 1764034 (Forum Jan. 25, 2018)("The Panel finds that complainant has rights in BLOOMBERG mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) based upon its registration with multiple trademark agencies, including the USPTO.").

 

Respondent's <palantir.xyz> domain name consists of Complainant's PALANTIR mark followed by the ".xyz" top-level. The slight difference between Complainant's trademark and the at-issue domain name fail to distinguish the domain name from Complainant's trademark for the purposes of the Policy. Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent's <palantir.xyz> domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant's PALANTIR trademark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See AbbVie Inc. v. Konayem Temirtassova, FA 1604178 (Forum Mar. 12, 2015) ("Complainant is correct that Respondent cannot escape responsibility for using a well-known and registered trademark of another by simply adding the gTLD .xyz . . .").

 

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, absent evidence of Policy ¶ 4(c) circumstances 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 Emerson Electric Co. v. golden humble / golden globals, FA 1787128 (Forum June 11, 2018) ("lack of evidence in the record to indicate a respondent is authorized to use [the] complainant's mark may support a finding that [the] respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)").

 

The WHOIS information for <palantir.xyz> indicates that "Caowei" is the domain name's registrant and there is no evidence in the record showing that Respondent is commonly known by <palantir.xyz>. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Coppertown Drive-Thru Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089 (Forum July 17, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <coppertown.com> domain name where there was no evidence in the record, including the WHOIS information, suggesting that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name).

 

Respondent uses <palantir.xyz> to generally offer it for-sale via a third party auction website for an amount in excess of its reasonably related costs. Respondent's attempt to sell <palantir.xyz> in this manner suggest neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) and instead provides further evidence of Respondent's lack of rights and legitimate interests in respect of the domain name. See 3M Company v. Kabir S Rawat, FA 1725052 (Forum May 9, 2017) (holding that "a general offer for sale… provides additional evidence that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests" in a disputed domain name).

 

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

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

As discussed below without being exhaustive, there is evidence from which the Panel concludes that Respondent acted in bad faith pursuant to the Policy.

 

Respondent registered and used its <palantir.xyz> domain name to offer it for sale through a third-party auction website. There, the domain name is offered to the general public for a starting bid well in excess of Respondent's reasonable out-of-pocket costs associated with said domain name. Respondent's general offer to sell <palantir.xyz> for a profit shows Respondent's bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(i). See loanDepot.com, LLC v. Expired domain caught by auction winner.***Maybe for sale on Dynadot Marketplace*** c/o Dynadot, FA 1786281 (Forum June 8, 2018) ("Complainant shows that Respondent offers the disputed domain name for sale for $950, no doubt above its out-of-pocket costs. The Panel finds that this constitutes bad faith under Policy ¶4(b)(i)."); see also, Educ. Testing Serv. v. TOEFL, D2000-0044 (WIPO Mar. 16, 2000) (finding that a general offer of sale combined with no legitimate use of the domain name constitutes registration and use in bad faith).

 

Moreover, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the PALANTIR mark when it registered <palantir.xyz> as a domain name. Respondent's actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in PALANTIR is evident given the notoriety of Complainant and its trademark from their widespread and extensive media coverage. Respondent's registration of <palantir.xyz> with prior knowledge of Complainant's trademark rights in PALANTIR additionally shows Respondent's bad faith registration and use of <palantir.xyz> under the Policy. 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); see also, Univision Comm'cns Inc. v. Norte, FA 1000079 (Forum Aug. 16, 2007) (rejecting the respondent's contention that it did not register the disputed domain name in bad faith since the panel found that the respondent had knowledge of the complainant's rights in the UNIVISION 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 <palantir.xyz> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist

Dated: February 7, 2024