DECISION

 

Charter Communications Holding Company, LLC v. Shubham Mahajan

Claim Number: FA2409002118052

 

PARTIES

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

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <panoramacharter.pro>, 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.

 

Richard Hill as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on September 28, 2024; Forum received payment on September 28, 2024.

 

On September 30, 2024, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <panoramacharter.pro> 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 October 2, 2024, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of October 22, 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@panoramacharter.pro. Also on October 2, 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 formal response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. Respondent did however send an email to the Forum, see below.

 

On October 23, 2024, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Richard Hill 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

Complainant states that it is a telecommunications company providing services to nearly 32 million customers in the United States. With over 101,000 employees and service in 41 states, Complainant considers itself America's fastest growing TV, internet, and voice company. Since at least as early as 1994, Complainant has used the CHARTER mark in connection with cable television, internet, voice, and related services. Complainant invests substantial resources in advertising and promotion of its CHARTER mark, including via its websites <corporate.charter.com> and <www.spectrum.com>. Complainant owns the domain name <charter.com> and uses it and the PANORAMA CHARTER mark in hosting its own intranet, which is accessible only to Complainant's employees and other authorized users through various <charter.com> sub-domain names, including <panorama.charter.com>. Authorized users accessing these sub-domains are forwarded to a webpage where they are asked for their personal login credentials before accessing Complainant's intranet. Complainant also provides technical support services and other resources to employees and authorized users who have access to Complainant's networks, offered for "internal use only." Complainant asserts rights in the mark CHARTER through its registration in the United States in 2011.

 

Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its CHARTER mark as it incorporates the mark in its entirety and merely adds the generic/descriptive term "panorama", and the ".pro" generic top-level domain ("gTLD"). Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.

 

According to Complainant, Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant's mark and is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, the resolving website displays Complainant's CHARTER mark and logo, and copies significant content from Complainant's various websites— including screen captures from Complainant's login screen for its intranet portal and related technical support webpages—in a blatant attempt to make Respondent's website appear like a legitimate website owned or otherwise authorized by Complainant. Respondent's unauthorized use of Complainant's CHARTER mark and copying from Complainant's websites are clearly intended to mislead consumers into believing they have arrived at a website that is owned by or otherwise associated with Complainant. Respondent's website also includes hyperlinks that redirect to Complainant's legitimate websites, further suggesting an effort to pass itself off as or suggest an affiliation with Complainant. For example, the "Login" button on the homepage of Respondent's website redirects to the legitimate login screen for Complainant's private intranet network. Respondent's choice to populate its website with links to Complainant's own legitimate websites only furthers the likelihood of consumer deception. Complainant is concerned that Respondent uses the disputed domain name and resolving website to conduct a widespread phishing scheme designed to confuse internet users who believe they are interacting with Complainant, or for other nefarious purposes such as identity theft. For example, on a dedicated "Contact" page, Respondent's website solicits personal information from internet users—including their full names and email addresses. MX records are configured for the disputed domain name, so it could be used in furtherance of email phishing. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.

 

Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith by disrupting Complainant's business by passing off as Complainant in furtherance of phishing. Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in its mark. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a formal Response in this proceeding. It its email to Forum, Respondent states, in pertinent part: "I would like to confirm that the website has now been closed. The website was created purely for informational purposes, and I have no intention of further using or maintaining it. If Charter Communications Holding Company, LLC would like to take ownership of the domain, you may request the registrar, Namecheap, to transfer the domain to your account. Currently, I am unable to transfer or manage the domain directly due to the lock placed on it for the ongoing UDRP process."

 

FINDINGS

For the reasons set forth below, the Panel will not make any findings of fact. The Panel however notes, obiter dictum, that the evidence set forth in the Complainant appears to support Complainant's allegations.

 

DISCUSSION

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.

 

Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable."

 

The Panel interprets Respondent's email to Forum as indicating consent to transfer the disputed domain name. Thus, in the present case, the parties have both asked for the domain name to be transferred to the Complainant. In accordance with a general legal principle governing arbitrations as well as national court proceedings, this Panel holds that it cannot act nec ultra petita nec infra petita, that is, that it cannot issue a decision that would be either less than requested, nor more than requested by the parties. Since the requests of the parties in this case are identical, the Panel has no scope to do anything other than to recognize the common request, and it has no mandate to make findings of fact or of compliance (or not) with the Policy.

 

See Malev Hungarian Airlines, Ltd. v. Vertical Axis Inc., FA 212653 (Forum Jan. 13, 2004); see also Boehringer Ingelheim Int'l GmbH v. Modern Ltd. – Cayman Web Dev., FA 133625 (Forum Jan. 9, 2003) (transferring the domain name registration where the respondent stipulated to the transfer); see also Disney Enters., Inc. v. Morales, FA 475191 (Forum June 24, 2005) ("[U]nder such circumstances, where Respondent has agreed to comply with Complainant's request, the Panel felt it to be expedient and judicial to forego the traditional UDRP analysis and order the transfer of the domain names.").

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

For the reasons set forth above, the Panel will not analyze this element of the Policy.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

For the reasons set forth above, the Panel will not analyze this element of the Policy.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

For the reasons set forth above, the Panel will not analyze this element of the Policy.

 

DECISION

Given the common request of the Parties, it is Ordered that the <panoramacharter.pro> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Richard Hill, Panelist

Dated: October 23, 2024