DECISION

 

LTQ LIMITED DIGITAL COMPANY v. Sahil Hirapara

Claim Number: FA2409002114085

 

PARTIES

Complainant is LTQ LIMITED DIGITAL COMPANY ("Complainant"), represented by LE THAC QUYNH, Virginia, USA. Respondent is Sahil Hirapara ("Respondent"), India.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <savefrom.bz>, registered with Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Registrar.eu.

 

PANEL

The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially, and, to the best of his knowledge, has no conflict of interests in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.

 

Terry F. Peppard as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on September 4, 2024; Forum received payment on September 4, 2024.

 

On September 12, 2024, Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Registrar.eu confirmed by e-mail message addressed to the Forum that the <savefrom.bz> domain name is registered with Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Registrar.eu and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Registrar.eu has verified that Respondent is bound by the Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Registrar.eu 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 September 13, 2024, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of October 3, 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 the attention of postmaster@savefrom.bz. Also on September 13, 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 October 4, 2024, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Terry F. Peppard as sole Panelist in this proceeding.

 

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 owns and operates a business devoted to the development and provision of digital tools, including a product denominated its YouTube Downloader, which allows Internet users to download videos for their personal use.

 

Complainant holds a registration for the trademark and service mark SAVEFROM, on file with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") as Registry No. 4,931,103, registered April 5, 2016.

 

Complainant has done business online continuously at the address <savefrom.net> since March 12, 2008.

 

Respondent registered the domain name <savefrom.bz> on or about June 13, 2024.

 

The domain name is substantively identical and confusingly similar to Complainant's SAVEFROM mark.

 

The website resolving from Respondent's domain name purports to offer a product identified as its "YouTube Video Downloader," which both impersonates Complainant as its source and mimics the features of Complainant's YouTube Downloader.

 

Respondent has not been commonly known by the domain name.

 

Respondent has no connection with Complainant.

 

Respondent is not authorized to act on Complainant's behalf.

 

Complainant has not granted Respondent the right to use its SAVEFROM trademark and service mark.

Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name.

 

Respondent knew of Complainant and its rights in the SAVEFROM mark when it registered the domain name.

 

Respondent has registered and now uses the domain name in bad faith. 

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

(1)       the domain name registered by Respondent is substantively identical and confusingly similar to a trademark and service mark in which Complainant has rights; and

(2)       Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and

(3)       the same domain name was registered and is being used by Respondent in bad faith.

 

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:

 

i.                      the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and

ii.                      Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and

iii.                      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 will, pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules, decide this proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations, and, pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, draw such inferences as it deems appropriate. The Panel is entitled to accept as true all reasonable claims and inferences set out in the Complaint unless the supporting evidence is manifestly contradictory. See, for example, Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Forum July 31, 2000) (finding that a respondent's failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of a UDRP complaint to be deemed true). But see 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

By reason of its registration of the SAVEFROM trademark and service mark with a national trademark authority, the USPTO, Complainant has established that it has rights in that mark sufficient to satisfy the requirement of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) that it demonstrate standing to pursue its claim against Respondent in this proceeding.  See, for example, Liberty Global Logistics, LLC v. damilola emmanuel / tovary svcs. Ltd., FA 1738536 (Forum Aug. 4, 2017):

 

Registration of a mark with the USPTO sufficiently establishes the required rights in the mark for purposes of the Policy.

 

This is true without regard to whether Complainant's rights in its mark arise from registration of the mark in a jurisdiction (here the United States) other than that in which Respondent resides or does business (here India). See, for example, W.W. Grainger, Inc. v. Above.com Domain Privacy, FA 1334458 (Forum Aug. 24, 2010):

 

[T]he Panel finds that USPTO registration is sufficient to establish these [Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)] rights even when Respondent lives or operates in a different country.

 

Turning to the core question posed by Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), we conclude from a review of the record that Respondent's <savefrom.bz> domain name is substantively identical, and thus perforce, confusingly similar to Complainant's SAVEFROM trademark and service mark. The domain name incorporates the mark in its entirety, with only the addition of the generic Top Level Domain ("gTLD") (".bz"). This alteration of the mark, made in creating the domain name, does not permit it to escape the realm of confusing similarity under the standards of the Policy. See, for example, Isleworth Land Co. v. Lost in Space, SA, FA 117330 (Forum Sept. 27, 2002):

 

[I]t is a well-established principle that generic top-level domains are irrelevant when conducting a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis.

 

This is because every domain name requires a gTLD or other TLD.

 

Rights and Legitimate Interests 

Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) requires that Complainant make a prima facie showing that Respondent has neither rights to nor legitimate interests in the domain name <savefrom.bz>, whereupon the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have such rights or interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm't Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006) (finding that a UDRP complainant must make a prima facie case that a respondent lacks rights to or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name under UDRP ¶ 4(a)(ii) before the burden shifts to that respondent to show that it does have such rights or interests). See also AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Forum Sept. 25, 2006):

 

Complainant must … make a prima facie showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names, which burden is light. If Complainant satisfies its burden, … the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain names.

 

Complainant has made a sufficient prima facie showing under this head of the Policy. Respondent's failure to respond to the Complaint therefore permits us to infer that Respondent does not have rights to or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. See, for example, Desotec N.V. v. Jacobi Carbons AB, D2000-1398 (WIPO Dec. 21, 2000) (finding that a respondent's failure to respond to a UDRP complaint allows a presumption that a complainant's allegations are true unless they are clearly contradicted by the evidence). Nonetheless, we will examine the record before us, in light of the several considerations set out in Policy ¶ 4(c)(i)-(iii), to determine whether there is in it any basis for concluding that Respondent has rights to or legitimate interests in the contested domain name that are cognizable under the Policy.

 

We begin by noting that Complainant contends, and Respondent does not deny, that Respondent has not been commonly known by the contested <savefrom.bz> domain name, and that Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use the SAVEFROM mark. Moreover, the pertinent WHOIS information identifies the registrant of the domain name only as "Sahil Hirapara," which does not resemble the domain name. On this record, we conclude that Respondent has not been commonly known by the disputed domain name so as to have acquired rights to or legitimate interests in it within the ambit of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See, for example, Google LLC v. Bhawana Chandel / Admission Virus, FA 1799694 (Forum Sept. 4, 2018) (concluding that a respondent was not commonly known by a disputed domain name incorporating the GOOGLE mark where the relevant WHOIS record identified that respondent as "Bhawana Chandel," and nothing in the record showed that that respondent was authorized to use a UDRP Complainant's mark in any manner).

 

We next observe that Complainant asserts, without objection from Respondent, that the website resolving from Respondent's domain name purports to offer a product identified as a "YouTube Video Downloader," which impersonates Complainant as its source and mimics the features of Complainant's YouTube Downloader. In the circumstances presented in the Complaint, we may comfortably presume that Respondent seeks to profit financially from this use of the domain name. Its employment of the domain name in this manner is, therefore, neither a bona fide offering of goods or services by means of it  under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of it under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) such as would confirm in Respondent rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name as provided in those subsections of the Policy. See, for example, Watts Water Technologies Inc. v. wo ci fa men zhi zao, etc., FA 1740269 (Forum Aug. 11, 2017):

 

Respondent has used the domain name to resolve to a website that mimics the color scheme associated with Complainant's … brand and displays counterfeit versions of Complainant's products for purchase in an attempt to pass itself off as Complainant… [Therefore], the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights [to] or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

 

The Panel therefore finds that Complainant has satisfied the proof requirements of Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

We are persuaded by the evidence accompanying the Complaint that the website resolving from the challenged <savefrom.bz> domain name mimics Complainant's official website, and that Respondent's website is being used by Respondent to compete with Complainant, from which employment Respondent acquires profits illicitly. This use demonstrates that Respondent has both registered and now uses the domain name in bad faith within the compass of Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv).  See, for example, Microtech Knives, Inc. v. Fu Chunyun, FA 2093534 (Forum May 15, 2024):

 

Respondent uses the confusingly similar … domain name to pass itself off as Complainant [online] and address a website pretending to be Complainant's … website where it offers counterfeit … branded products. Using the confusingly similar domain name in such a manner is disruptive to Complainant's business and falsely indicates that there is an authorized relationship between Complainant and Respondent when there is no such relationship. Respondent's use of the domain name to perpetrate fraud demonstrates Respondent's bad faith [registration and use of the domain name] under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv). 

 

Moreover, it is evident from the materials submitted in support of the Complaint that Respondent knew of Complainant and its rights in the SAVEFROM mark when it registered the disputed domain name. This further demonstrates that Respondent registered the domain name in bad faith. See, for example, The Prudential Ins. Co. v. Bigxa Co., Ltd., FA 95487 (Forum Oct. 6, 2000) (finding bad faith where a respondent had to be aware of a UDRP complainant's mark when registering a confusingly similar domain name).

 

The Panel thus finds that Complainant has met its obligations of proof under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). 

 

DECISION

Complainant having established all three elements required to be proven under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that the relief requested must be, and it is hereby, GRANTED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <savefrom.bz> domain name be TRANSFERRED forthwith from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Terry F. Peppard, Panelist

Dated: October 16, 2024