DECISION

 

Warner Bros. Discovery, Inc., Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc., DC Comics, Home Box Office, Inc., The Cartoon Network, Inc., and Courtroom Television Network LLC dba truTV v. Suspended Domain / scott mcquoid / Nanci Nette / jiang meijing

Claim Number: FA2402002084246

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Warner Bros. Discovery, Inc., Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc., DC Comics, Home Box Office, Inc., The Cartoon Network, Inc., and Courtroom Television Network LLC dba truTV ("Complainant"), represented by S. Annie Allison, of Haynes and Boone, LLP, New York, USA. Respondent is Suspended Domain / scott mcquoid / Nanci Nette / jiang meijing ("Respondent"), International.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES

The domain names at issue are <watchseinfeld.com>, <watchimpracticaljokers.online>, <watchtheflintstones.online>, <watchozonline.com>, <watchsexandthecity.com>, <watchcurbyourenthusiasm.com>, <watchregularshowonline.com>, <watchgilmoregirlsonline.com>, <watchthebigbangtheory.com>, <watchthewestwing.com>, <watcharrowonline.com>, <watchchuckonline.com>, <watchtwoandahalfmenonline.com>, <watchthevampirediaries.com>, <watchthemiddleonline.com>, <watchthementalistonline.com>, <watchsmallvilleonline.net>, <watchprettylittleliarsonline.com>, <watchgossipgirlonline.net>, <watcheronline.net>, <watchthe100online.com>, <iwatchfriendsonline.com> and <iwatchgameofthrones.cc>, registered with NameCheap, Inc. and Sav.com, LLC - 2.

 

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.

 

Darryl C. Wilson, as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 17, 2024; Forum received payment on February 19, 2024.

 

On February 18, 2024 and February 23, 2024, NameCheap, Inc. and Sav.com, LLC - 2 confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <watchseinfeld.com>, <watchimpracticaljokers.online>, <watchtheflintstones.online>, <watchozonline.com>, <watchsexandthecity.com>, <watchcurbyourenthusiasm.com>, <watchregularshowonline.com>, <watchgilmoregirlsonline.com>, <watchthebigbangtheory.com>, <watchthewestwing.com>, <watcharrowonline.com>, <watchchuckonline.com>, <watchtwoandahalfmenonline.com>, <watchthevampirediaries.com>, <watchthemiddleonline.com>, <watchthementalistonline.com>, <watchsmallvilleonline.net>, <watchprettylittleliarsonline.com>, <watchgossipgirlonline.net>, <watcheronline.net>, <watchthe100online.com>, <iwatchfriendsonline.com> and <iwatchgameofthrones.cc> domain names are registered with NameCheap, Inc. and Sav.com, LLC - 2 and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. NameCheap, Inc. and Sav.com, LLC - 2 have verified that Respondent is bound by the NameCheap, Inc. and Sav.com, LLC - 2 registration agreements and have thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy").

 

On March 4, 2024, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 25, 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@watchseinfeld.com, postmaster@watchimpracticaljokers.online, postmaster@watchtheflintstones.online, postmaster@watchozonline.com, postmaster@watchsexandthecity.com, postmaster@watchcurbyourenthusiasm.com, postmaster@watchregularshowonline.com, postmaster@watchgilmoregirlsonline.com, postmaster@watchthebigbangtheory.com, postmaster@watchthewestwing.com, postmaster@watcharrowonline.com, postmaster@watchchuckonline.com, postmaster@watchtwoandahalfmenonline.com, postmaster@watchthevampirediaries.com, postmaster@watchthemiddleonline.com, postmaster@watchthementalistonline.com, postmaster@watchsmallvilleonline.net, postmaster@watchprettylittleliarsonline.com, postmaster@watchgossipgirlonline.net, postmaster@watcheronline.net, postmaster@watchthe100online.com, postmaster@iwatchfriendsonline.com, and postmaster@iwatchgameofthrones.cc. Also on March 4, 2024, 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 March 26, 2024, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Darryl C. Wilson 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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PRELIMINARY ISSUE: MULTIPLE COMPLAINANTS

Complainant Warner Bros. Discovery, Inc. ("WBD") is the parent company of complainants Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc., DC Comics, Home Box Office, Inc., The Cartoon Network, Inc., and Courtroom Television Network LLC dba truTV (the "Subsidiaries"). Paragraph 3(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") provides that "[a]ny person or entity may initiate an administrative proceeding by submitting a complaint." Forum's Supplemental Rule 1(e) defines "The Party Initiating a Complaint Concerning a Domain Name Registration" as a "single person or entity claiming to have rights in the domain name, or multiple persons or entities who have a sufficient nexus who can each claim to have rights to all domain names listed in the Complaint." 

 

Previous panels have found that Forum's Supplemental Rule 1(e) allows multiple parties to proceed as one party where they can show a sufficient link or nexus to each other. See, e.g., ITT Inc. and ITT Manufacturing Enterprises, LLC v. Thomas Romero, FA 1961339 (Forum Sept. 29, 2021) ("It has been accepted that it is permissible for two complainants to submit a single complaint if they can demonstrate a link between the two entities such as a relationship involving a license, a partnership or an affiliation that would establish the reason for the parties bringing the complaint as one entity.") see also Skechers U.S.A., Inc. and Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II v. Qiu Xiaofeng, FA2068050 (Forum November 22, 2023) ("Complainant Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II is a wholly owned subsidiary of Skechers U.S.A., Inc. As such, Skechers U.S.A., Inc. and Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II are both in privity with each other. The Panel accepts that the parent/subsidiary relationship between Complainants constitutes a sufficient nexus or link such that each may claim to have rights to the Domain Names listed in the Complaint.").

 

The Panel here finds that Complainants have presented sufficient evidence that the Complainants' relationships and business structure support the conclusion that they should be treated as a single entity. The findings and decisions herein therefore apply to all six complainants collectively as "Complainant".

 

PRELIMINARY ISSUE: MULTIPLE RESPONDENTS

Complainant alleges the entities which control the domain names at issue are effectively the same person and/or one entity, which are operating jointly, possibly under several aliases. Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") provides that a "complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder."

Complainant indicates that all of the Disputed Domain Names are connected via a central webpage; all of the Disputed Domain Names incorporate variations on the Complainant's marks in combination with other generic terms; the layouts of the resolving websites for the disputed domain names are highly similar; and that many of the disputed domain names were registered on dates that are identical or in close proximity to one another. Further, Complainant indicates that the domain names have been used in concert with one another, while displaying Complainant's trademarks, logos, and design elements.

 

Common control of domain name ownership has been found where the facts were sufficient to create a presumption that a single person or entity has registered multiple domain names based on the similarity of the domain names at issue coupled with other evidence such as similarity of registration dates, registrars, registrant information, location, and name servers. See Yahoo!, Inc v. Somsak Sooksripanich and Others, (WIPO Case No. D2000-1461) (January 29, 2001).

 

The Panel here finds that Complainant has presented sufficient evidence that the disputed domain names are registered by the same domain name holder or more than one person or entity acting jointly as the same domain name holder. The findings and decisions herein therefore apply to all named parties collectively as "Respondent".

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant WBD is a leading global media and entertainment company that creates and distributes the world's most differentiated and complete portfolio of content and brands across television, film, and streaming. Complainant WBD's subsidiaries, Warner Bros., DC Comics, HBO, Cartoon Network, and TruTV are home to vast libraries of renowned entertainment content.

 

The disputed domain names either resolve to websites purporting to offer or link to viewable episodes of the Complainant's programs, to parked pages, or to sites that are no longer active. The offending websites incorporate unauthorized uses of Complainant's copyright-protected content, including screenshots of episodes of the Complainant's programs and logos of the Complainant's programs as well as links to unauthorized copies of the Complainant's programs.

 

The disputed domain names all incorporate Complainant's protected marks in full or in part and as such are identical or confusingly similar to Complainant's marks. 

 

Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names as Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use Complainant's marks. Respondent has not used the disputed domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor is Respondent making a noncommercial fair use of the names, and there is no evidence to suggest that Respondent has ever been legitimately known as or referred to as any of the Complainant's marks, or any variation thereof.

 

Respondent registered and has used the disputed domain names in bad faith, primarily for the purpose of disrupting Complainant's business. Further, Respondent has used the disputed domain names to intentionally attract, for commercial gain, internet users to its various websites by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's marks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the infringing websites.

 

Complainant is in no way affiliated with Respondent and has not authorized Respondent to use its intellectual property in association with the disputed domain names or to offer any of the Complainant's programs in connection with the infringing websites.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant is Warner Bros. Discovery, Inc., (WBD) of New York, NY, USA. Complainant is the owner of numerous global and domestic registrations for a multitude of marks and brands used in its provision of television, film, and streaming content worldwide. Complainant's marks and brands, both registered and common law, include marks associated with their programs' names and subject matter, including but not limited to, Friends, Gilmore Girls, The Big Bang Theory, The West Wing, Arrow, Chuck, Two and a Half Men, The Vampire Diaries, The Middle, The Mentalist, Smallville, Pretty Little Liars, Gossip Girl, ER, and The 100, Seinfeld, The Flintstones, Game of Thrones, Oz, Sex and the City, Curb Your Enthusiasm, Regular Show, and Impractical Jokers (collectively "Complainant's programs"), all of which have been used in full or in part in the twenty-three (23) disputed domain names registered by Respondent. Complainant's registered marks date back to at least as early as 1980 and have been continuously used since the time each was registered.

 

Further, Complainant, either directly or through its affiliated entities, owns domain names that include the Complainant's marks, including, without limitation, <curbyourenthusiasm.com>, <ertv.com>, <flintstones.com>, <friends-tv.com>, <gilmoregirls.com>, <gossipgirltv.com>, <impracticaljokers.com>, <own-arrow.com>, <prettylittleliarstv.com>, <regularshow.com>, <seinfeld.com>, <sexandthecity.com>, <smallvilletv.com>, <the100series.com>, <thebigbangtheorytv.com>, <thementalisttv.com>, <themiddletv.com>, <twoandahalfmen.com>, <vampirediariestv.com>, and <westwingtv.com> (collectively the "Complainant's domain names"). All of the Complainant's domain names were registered well before Respondent's disputed domain names.

 

Respondent is identified as Scott McQuoid, Nanci Nette, Jiang Meijing, and Suspended Domain. Respondent's location is shown as the United Kingdom, USA, China, and Panama respectively. Respondent's registration of the disputed domain names took place at various times between 2018 and 2024 but in no instances prior to Complainant's established ownership of its marks or related domain names.

 

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

Complainant asserts rights in the marks SEINFELD (1993), IMPRACTICAL JOKERS (2012), THE FLINSTONES (1987), OZ (2004), SEX AND THE CITY (2001), CURB YOUR ENTHUSIASM (2003), REGULAR SHOW (2010), GILMORE GIRLS (2007), THE BIG BANG THEORY (2010), THE WEST WING (2006), TWO AND A HALF MEN (2006), THE VAMPIRE DIARIES (2012), THE MENTALIST (2010), SMALLVILLE (2002), PRETTY LITTLE LIARS (2012), GOSSIP GIRL (2013), FRIENDS (1997), ER (1997) and GAME OF THRONES (2011) based upon registrations with the USPTO at various times since 1980 (see  e.g., GREEN ARROW, USPTO Reg. No. 1130353 registered February 5, 1980), as well as ARROW, CHUCK, THE MIDDLE, AND THE 100 through common law based on continuous expenditures and usage creating primary association of the marks with Complainant. Registration of a mark with the USPTO sufficiently establishes rights in the mark. See DIRECTV, LLC v. The Pearline Group, FA 1818749 (Forum Dec. 30, 2018) ("Complainant's ownership of a USPTO registration for DIRECTV demonstrate its rights in such mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)."). Established common law rights are also sufficient to demonstrate a Complainant's rights in the subject marks for the purposes of the UDRP.

See Golden Title Loans, LLC dba 745Cash v. roylee, FA 1618801 (Forum June 23, 2015) (holding, "Relevant evidence of secondary meaning includes continuous and ongoing use of a mark, holding of a domain name identical to the mark, or using the mark in commerce before a disputed domain name is created.").

 

The disputed domain names incorporate Complainant's marks entirely in full or in part, adding only the generic and descriptive terms "watch" or "I watch" and/or "online" in combination with non-distinctive gTLDs. It is well settled that the inclusion of generic terms and non-distinctive top-level domains does not distinguish a domain name from a complainant's prior marks. See Universal Television LLC and NBC Universal Media, LLC v. scott mcquoid / Gloria Camavinga, FA2065271 (Forum November 3, 2023) ("The Panel finds Respondent's domain name to be confusingly similar to Complainant's common law THE OFFICE mark, only differing by the addition of the words "watch" and "tv" (an abbreviation of "television"), which do nothing to distinguish the domain name from the mark"); see also Mediacom Communications Corporation v. Domain Admin / TotalDomain Privacy Ltd, FA 2070425 (Forum Dec. 5, 2023) ("Respondent's domain name contains Complainant's MEDIACOM trademark and adds the terms "my" and "online" followed by the ".com" top-level domain name. Respondent's additions to Complainant's trademark in forming the at-issue domain name fail to distinguish the domain name from Complainant's MEDIACOM trademark.").

 

Respondent raises no contentions with regards to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

The Panel here finds the domain names are identical or confusingly similar to Complainant's marks per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

The Complainant has proven this element.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Panel notes that Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)); see also Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) ("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"). Complainant has made out a prima facie case here.

 

Respondent does not have a legitimate interest in the disputed domain names, as legitimate interests are defined in Paragraphs 4(c)(i)-(iii) of the Policy. Rather, the demonstrated purpose and use by Respondent is to exploit the Complainant's marks by both confusing and diverting consumers to the infringing websites, as well as seeking to benefit from internet traffic intended for Complainant in order to profit from the use of third-party advertisements served on Respondent's infringing websites.

 

Respondent is not commonly known by any of the Complainant's marks and Complainant has not consented to, authorized, or licensed Respondent's use of the Complainant's marks. There is no information to suggest that Respondent is, or has ever been, known by the Complainant's marks. Accordingly, Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. See Broadcom Corp. v. Ibecom PLC, FA361190 (Forum Dec. 22, 2004) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where there was nothing in the record to indicate that Respondent was commonly known by the domain name); see also Tercent Inc. v. Yi, FA139720 (Forum Feb. 10, 2003) (finding that the WHOIS information, and its failure to imply that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name, is a factor in determining that Policy ¶4(c)(ii) does not apply); see also Novartis AG v. Drewcom, FA1450628 (Forum Aug. 10, 2008) (finding lack of legitimate interest or rights in part because complainant had not licensed or otherwise permitted respondent to use its trademarks).

 

Respondent raises no contentions with regards to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

 

The Panel here finds Respondent is not commonly known by, and lacks rights or legitimate interests in, the disputed domain names per Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

 

The Complainant has proven this element.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Respondent is in clear violation of ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and 4(b)(iv) and has taken actions with respect to the disputed domain names that indicate Respondent's bad faith registration and use. Respondent is capitalizing on the unauthorized use of the Complainant's marks in order to confuse Internet users into believing that Respondent is Complainant or affiliated with or authorized by Complainant to distribute Complainant's programs. Respondent's websites incorporate unauthorized uses of Complainant's copyright protected content, including screenshots of episodes of Complainant's programs, logos, and other content containing Complainant's marks as well as links to unauthorized copies of the Complainant's programs. Such actions constitute bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See Phillips 66 Company v. Vanshita sharma / Ms, FA 1938027 (Forum April 26, 2021) ("Respondent's use of the confusingly similar domain name to steal Complainant's identity and pass itself off as Complainant to defraud third parties disrupts Complainant's business and demonstrates Respondent's bad faith registration and use of the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv)."); see also Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. v. Not Telling, FA 1956520 (Forum Aug. 23, 2021) ("Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to pass itself off as Complainant. Doing so creates consumer confusion and show Respondent's bad faith per Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv).").

 

Further, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights when it registered the disputed domain names, as demonstrated by Respondent's inclusion of Complainant's marks into the disputed domain names. Actual knowledge of a complainant's marks at registration of a disputed domain name constitutes evidence of bad faith under the Policy. See Jerry Seinfeld, Castle Rock Entertainment and Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. v Carlos Fernandez, FA 243510 (Forum April 23, 2004) ("The Panel finds that Respondent registered a domain name that it knew to be identical to the SEINFELD mark, in which Complainant had rights, which also evidences bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)."); see also Digi Int'l v. DDI Sys., FA 124506 (Forum Oct. 24, 2002) ("[T]here is a legal presumption of complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the respondent's website or location or of a product or service on the respondent's website or location. bad faith, when Respondent reasonably should have been aware of Complainant's trademarks, actually or constructively.").

 

Additionally, Respondent's registration of multiple domain names that infringe on multiple marks owned by Complainant is evidence of a pattern of bad faith under the Policy. Prior panels have held that registration of multiple domain names containing a complainant's mark further supports a finding of bad faith registration and use by a respondent under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). See NIKE, Inc., and Nike Innovate, C.V. v. Emile Boulanger, FA1732458 (Forum July 3, 2017) ("Registration of multiple domain names in a current proceeding is evidence of bad faith."); see also Caterpillar Inc. v. Angie Arendt / DIAHOST .CO / keith mosley, FA1789701 (Forum July 2, 2018) ("A respondent who registers multiple domain names that include infringing trademarks may be found to be acting in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii).").

 

The Panel here finds that Respondent engaged in bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

Respondent raises no contentions with regards to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

The Complainant has proven this element.

 

DECISION

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

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <watchseinfeld.com>, <watchimpracticaljokers.online>, <watchtheflintstones.online>, <watchozonline.com>, <watchsexandthecity.com>, <watchcurbyourenthusiasm.com>, <watchregularshowonline.com>, <watchgilmoregirlsonline.com>, <watchthebigbangtheory.com>, <watchthewestwing.com>, <watcharrowonline.com>, <watchchuckonline.com>, <watchtwoandahalfmenonline.com>, <watchthevampirediaries.com>, <watchthemiddleonline.com>, <watchthementalistonline.com>, <watchsmallvilleonline.net>, <watchprettylittleliarsonline.com>, <watchgossipgirlonline.net>, <watcheronline.net>, <watchthe100online.com>, <iwatchfriendsonline.com> and <iwatchgameofthrones.cc> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

 

 

Darryl C. Wilson, Panelist

Dated: April 8, 2024