DECISION

 

Micro Electronics, Inc. v. li houchang

Claim Number: FA2409002117401

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Micro Electronics, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Joseph M. Manak of Scarinci Hollenbeck LLC, New York, USA. Respondent is li houchang ("Respondent"), China.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <miccrocenter.com>, ('the Domain Name') registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.

 

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 September 25, 2024; Forum received payment on September 25, 2024.

 

On September 25, 2024, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <miccrocenter.com> Domain Name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, LLC 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 26, 2024, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of October 16, 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@miccrocenter.com. Also on September 26, 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 17, 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 is the owner of the trade mark MICRO CENTER registered, inter alia, in the USA for computer retail services since 1984. The mark is well known. The Complainant operates a web site at www.microcenter.com.

 

The Domain Name registered in 2019 is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trade mark merely adding an additional 'c' and the gTLD .com which are insufficient to negate the confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the Complainant's mark.

 

Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, is not commonly known by the Domain Name, is not authorised by the Complainant and has been used to point to malware sites. The Domain Name was subject to privacy protection and has been offered for sale for $1,488 a price that exceeds out of pocket registration expenses. This is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a non commercial legitimate or fair use.

 

Use to point to malware sites and offering of a domain name containing a well known mark for sale for a sum in excess of out of pocket expenses is bad faith registration and use.

 

The Respondent has been found to have acted in bad faith in a prior adverse UDRP decision which is a pattern of conduct and further evidence of bad faith. 

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

 The Complainant is the owner of the trade mark MICRO CENTER registered, inter alia, in the USA for computer retail services since 1984. The mark is well known. The Complainant operates a web site at microcenter.com.

 

The Domain Name registered in 2019 has been used to point to malware sites and has been offered for sale generally for $1488.

 

The Respondent has been subject to another adverse UDRP decision.

 

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 MICROCENTER mark (registered, inter alia in the USA for computer retail services since 1984), merely adding an additional letter 'c' and the gTLD.com.

 

Panels have found that adding one letter to a registered mark does not distinguish a domain name from that mark. See Twitch Interactive, Inc. v Antonio Teggi, FA 1626528 (Forum Aug. 3, 2015) (finding that twitcch.tv is confusingly similar to the TWITCH TV trade mark because the domain name consisted of a common misspelling of the mark by merely adding the letter 'c').

 

The gTLD .com does not serve to distinguish the Domain Name from the 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 for the purpose 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 1574905 (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).

 

Use to offer suspected malware is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate non commercial or fair use. See Snap Inc. v. Domain Admin / Whois Privacy Corp., FA 1735300 (Forum July 14, 2017) ("Use of a disputed domain name to offer malicious software does not constitute a bona fide offering or a legitimate use per Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) & (iii).").

 

Further the Domain Name appears to be a typosquatting registration differing by only one letter 'c' from the Complainant's mark and domain name. Typosquatting is an indication of a lack of rights or legitimate interests. See Chegg Inc. v. yang qijin, FA 1610050 (Forum Apr. 23, 2015) ("Users might mistakenly reach Respondent's resolving website by misspelling Complainant's mark. 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).").

 

The Domain Name containing the Complainant's mark has been offered for sale for $1,488, a sum well in excess of registration costs, which is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate non commercial or fair use.  See Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation v. Diego Ossa, FA 1602016 (Forum Feb. 26, 2015). 

 

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

Use of a domain name for malware is use of a domain name in bad faith. See Twitter, Inc. v. Kiribati Media / Kiribati 200 Media Limited, FA 1603444 (Forum Mar. 19, 2015).

 

Further, the Domain Name is a typosquatting domain name. Typosquatting itself is evidence of relevant bad faith registration and use. 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 which entirely incorporates a famous mark with additional letter (s) in the hope that Internet users will mistype the Complainant's mark and be taken to the Respondent's site is registration and use in bad faith").

 

The Domain Name containing the Complainant's mark has been offered for sale generally for $1,488. See Capital One Financial Corp. v. haimin xu, FA 1819364 (Forum Jan. 8, 2019) ("A general offer to sell a domain name can be evidence the respondent intended to make such an offer at the time it registered the name, supporting a finding of bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(i)."). 

 

The Panel also notes the adverse decision against the Respondent in another UDRP case indicating a pattern of activity. See Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation v. oranges arecool XD / orangesarecool.com, FA 1558045 (Forum July 10, 2014) (finding that the prior adverse UDRP history was evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii)).

 

As such, the Panel holds that the Complainant has made out its case that the Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith. 

 

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

 

 

 

Dawn Osborne, Panelist

Dated: October 17, 2024