DECISION

 

Charter Communications Holding Company, LLC v. Ali Haider

Claim Number: FA2403002087891

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Charter Communications Holding Company, LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Julie Kent of Holland & Hart LLP, Colorado, USA. Respondent is Ali Haider ("Respondent"), Pakistan.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <spectrumiptv.net> ('the Domain Name'), registered with HOSTINGER operations, UAB.

 

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 March 11, 2024; Forum received payment on March 11, 2024.

 

On March 13, 2024, HOSTINGER operations, UAB confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <spectrumiptv.net> Domain Name is registered with HOSTINGER operations, UAB and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. HOSTINGER operations, UAB has verified that Respondent is bound by the HOSTINGER operations, UAB 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 March 18, 2024, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 8, 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@spectrumiptv.net. Also on March 18, 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 April 9, 2024 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.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

The Complainant owns a number of marks including SPECTRUM registered in the USA for telecommunications/television services with first use recorded as 2013.

 

The Domain Name registered in 2024 has been used for a site which uses the Complainant's mark prominently in a similar logo form and a similar layout to the official site of the Complaint to offer competing services.

 

The Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trade marks containing SPECTRUM in its entirety adding only the generic term 'iptv' meaning internet protocol television and a gTLD which do not distinguish the Domain Name from the Complainant's mark.

 

The Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name and has not been authorised by the Complainant to use its mark.

 

Using the Complainant's mark in a similar logo form and a similar layout to the official site of the Complainant to offer competing services is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate non commercial fair use. It is disruptive and causing confusion on the Internet and is registration and use in bad faith contrary to Policy 4 (b)(iii) and (iv). The site does not have contact information and does not work properly pointing to an unrelated mobile app and an error message.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

The Complainant owns a number of marks including SPECTRUM registered in the USA for telecommunications services with first use recorded as 2013.

 

The Domain Name registered in 2024 is connected to a site that was using the Complainant's mark in a similar logo form and a similar layout to the official site of the Complainant to offer competing services.

 

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 consists of a sign confusingly similar to the Complainant's SPECTRUM related mark (registered in USA for telecommunications services with first use recorded as 2013), the generic term 'iptv' meaning internet protocol television and the gTLD .net.

 

Previous panels have found confusing similarity when a respondent merely adds a generic term to a Complainant's mark. See PG&E Corp. v Anderson, D2000-1264 (WIPO Nov. 22, 2000) (finding that respondent does not by adding common descriptive or generic terms create new or different marks nor does it alter the underling mark held by the Complainant). The Panel agrees that the addition of the generic term 'iptv' to the Complainant's SPECTRUM mark does not distinguish the Domain Name from the Complainant's registered trade mark pursuant to the Policy.

 

The gTLD .net does not serve to distinguish a Domain Name from a Complainant's mark. 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 holds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's SPECTRUM mark.

 

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 SPECTRUM. There is no evidence or reason to suggest the Respondent is commonly known by the Domain Name.

 

The web site attached to the Domain Name uses the Complainant's SPECTRUM mark in a similar form to the Complainant's logo and a similar layout to the Complainant's web site to offer television services so that the Respondent's site appears to be an official site of the Complainant. 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 Am. Intl Group Inc v Benjamin, FA 944242 (Forum May 11, 2007) (finding that the Respondent's use of a confusingly similar domain name to advertise services which competed with the Complainant's business did not constitute a bona fide use of goods and services).

 

The Respondent has not answered this Complaint and has not rebutted the prima facie 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

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 sign confusingly similar to the Complainant's SPECTRUM mark and logo and a similar layout to the Complainant's web site to sell television services. The use of the Complainant's mark and a similar logo to Complainant's logo and a similar layout to the Complainant's site shows that the Respondent is aware of the Complainant and its business.

 

Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain Internet users to his website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trade marks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the web site likely to disrupt the business of the Complainant.

 

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 paragraphs 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 <spectrumiptv.net> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Dawn Osborne, Panelist

Dated: April 9, 2024