DECISION

 

The Charles Machine Works, Inc. v. Big Tee / Big Taiwo Inc

Claim Number: FA2403002090464

 

PARTIES

Complainant is The Charles Machine Works, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Ross N. Chaffin of Tomlinson McKinstry, P.C., Oklahoma, USA. Respondent is Big Tee / Big Taiwo Inc ("Respondent"), Michigan, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <radiushsdd.com> ('the Domain Name'), registered with Namecheap, Inc.

 

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 26, 2024; Forum received payment on March 26, 2024.

 

On March 26, 2024, Namecheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <radiushsdd.com> Domain Name is registered with Namecheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Namecheap, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Namecheap, Inc. 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 28, 2024, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 17, 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@radiushsdd.com. Also on March 28, 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 18, 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's contentions can be summarised as follows:

 

The Complainant is the owner of the trade mark RADIUS, registered, inter alia, in the USA for drilling accessories with first use recorded as 2006. It uses the domain name radiushdd.com. 'Hdd' stands for horizontal directional drilling.

 

The Domain Name registered in 2024 is confusingly similar to the Complainant's mark, adding only the letters 'hsdd' and the gTLD .com which does not prevent said confusing similarity.

 

Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name and has not been authorised by the Complainant to use the Complainant's mark. The Domain Name has been used for a fraudulent e mail scheme and to point to commercial pay-per-click links, neither of which is a bona fide offering of goods or services or a non commercial legitimate and fair use.

 

Respondent has registered and used the confusingly similar Domain Name in opportunistic bad faith for a fraudulent e mail scheme.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

The Complainant is the owner of the trade mark RADIUS, registered, inter alia, in the USA for drilling accessories with first use recorded as 2006. It uses the domain name radiushdd.com.

 

The Domain Name registered in 2024 has been used for a fraudulent e mail scheme and to point to 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 consists of the Complainant's RADIUS mark (registered in the USA for drilling accessories with first use recorded as 2006), the letters 'hsdd' and the gTLD.com.

 

Adding random letters such as 'hsdd' and a gTLD such as .com to a mark does not prevent confusion between a resultant domain name and that mark. See Bittrex, Inc. v. Sergey Valerievich Kireev / Kireev, FA 1784651 (Forum June 5, 2018) (holding that the domain name consists of the BITTREX mark and adds "the letters 'btc' and the gTLD .com which do not distinguish the Domain Name from Complainant's mark.").

 

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

 

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, FA 01574905 (Forum Sept. 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 non commercial fair use.

 

The Domain Name has been used in a fraudulent phishing scheme. This is deceptive and confusing. As such it cannot amount to the bona fide offering of goods and services or a legitimate non commercial or fair use. (See DaVita Inc. v Cynthia Rochelo FA 1738034 (Forum July 20, 2017) finding that 'Passing off in furtherance of a fraudulent scheme is not considered a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate non commercial or 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 non commercial 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 from the Complainant's domain name by one letter. Typosquatting is also an indication of a lack of rights or a legitimate interests. See Chegg Inc. v. yang qijin, FA 1610050 (Forum Apr. 23, 2015) ("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).").

 

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

Impersonating a complainant by use of a domain name containing a complainant's mark in a fraudulent phishing scheme is disruptive and evinces bad faith registration and use. See Microsoft Corporation v Terrence Green/ Whois Agent/Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc., FA 1661030 (Forum Apr. 4 2016) (finding that respondent's use of the disputed domain name to send fraudulent e mails constituted bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy 4 (b)(iii)).

 

Further use for pay-per-click links indicates bad faith being disruptive of the Complainant's business and diverting customers for commercial gain and can indicate actual knowledge of the Complainant and its business. 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 products or services offered on it likely to disrupt the business of the Complainant. See Health Republic Insurance Company v Above.comLegal, FA 1622088, (Forum July 10, 2015) (regarding diversion to pay-per-click links).

 

Additionally 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 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) ("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.").

 

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

 

 

 

Dated: April 18, 2024

Dawn Osborne, Panelist