DECISION

 

Adobe Inc. v. ana jame

Claim Number: FA2503002145817

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Adobe Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Fabricio Vayra of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is ana jame ("Respondent"), Philippines.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <adobe-creativity.com>, registered with Gname.com Pte. Ltd.

 

PANEL

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

 

Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on March 18, 2025; Forum received payment on March 18, 2025.

 

On March 19, 2025, Gname.com Pte. Ltd. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <adobe-creativity.com> domain name is registered with Gname.com Pte. Ltd. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Gname.com Pte. Ltd. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Gname.com Pte. Ltd. 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 24, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 14, 2025 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@adobe-creativity.com. Also on March 24, 2025, 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 15, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Paul M. DeCicco 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 contends in part as follows:

 

Complainant Adobe, Inc.'s ADOBE mark has been used in commerce in connection with various computer software-related offerings since at least as early as 1986 in the U.S. Complainant has spent significant time, money, and resources promoting the ADOBE mark and, as a result, consumers have come to associate the mark exclusively with Complainant and its high-quality goods and services. Complainant owns worldwide rights in ADOBE, and it owns, among others, the U.S. and Philippines trademark registrations.

 

Respondent's at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights. Respondent's at-issue domain name incorporates the ADOBE in its entirety, merely adding a hyphen following the mark, followed by the descriptive term "creativity" and the ".com" generic top-level domain ("gTLD").

 

Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. Respondent is not licensed or otherwise authorized to use Complainant's ADOBE mark or any other trademarks owned by Complainant, nor is there any evidence that Respondent is commonly known by the at-issue domain name or any variant of the ADOBE trademark. Respondent is not using the at-issue domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, the at-issue domain name redirects to an unrelated website at the domain name eliterealtymaya.com. There visitors are offered online casino and gambling services. To participate, users must create an account by using embedded links which redirect to sites requesting personal information for an account such as name and telephone number. Such use of the at-issue domain name leverages the goodwill and consumer recognition associated with Complainant and its famous ADOBE mark to redirect to Respondent's unrelated website and purported services. Respondent was clearly aware of Complainant and Complainant's rights in ADOBE at the time it registered the at-issue domain name. Respondent's actual knowledge of Complainant's trademark rights prior to registration of <adobe-creativity.com> is evidence that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the <adobe-creativity.com> domain name.

 

Respondent registered and used the at-issue domain name in bad faith. The fame and unique qualities of the ADOBE mark, which was adopted and registered by Complainant well prior to the registration of the at-issue domain name, demonstrate that Respondent registered the domain name in bad faith to benefit from and trade off the goodwill Complainant has created in its famous name and mark. Respondent commercially benefits by diverting internet users looking for Complainant's to a website advertising Respondent's own commercial service. Respondent benefits from initial interest confusion created by Respondent's confusingly similar domain name. Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in ADOBE when it registered <adobe-creativity.com>. Respondent failed to respond to Complainant's demand letters sent prior to commencing the instant proceeding which also is evidence of bad faith registration and use of the domain name.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant has rights in the ADOBE trademark.

 

Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and had not been authorized to use Complainant's trademark in any capacity.

 

Respondent registered the at-issue domain name after Complainant acquired rights in the ADOBE trademark.

 

Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to redirect internet users to a website offering gambling and casino 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 at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.

 

Complainant's USPTO registrations for ADOBE as well as its other trademark registrations for such mark worldwide are each sufficient to demonstrate Complainant's rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See BGK Trademark Holdings, LLC & Beyoncé Giselle Knowles-Carter v. Chanphut / Beyonce Shop, FA 1626334 (Forum Aug. 3, 2015) (asserting that Complainant's registration with the USPTO (or any other governmental authority) adequately proves its rights under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)).

 

Respondent's <adobe-creativity.com> domain name contains Complainant's ADOBE trademark, followed by an insignificant hyphen and the suggestive term "creativity," with all followed by the ".com" top-level. The differences between Respondent's domain name and Complainant's trademark are insufficient to distinguish such domain name from Complainant's ADOBE mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent's at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights. See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("Where a relevant trademark is recognizable within a disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element.");see also, Wiluna Holdings, LLC v. Edna Sherman, FA 1652781 (Forum Jan. 22, 2016) (finding the addition of a generic term and gTLD is insufficient in distinguishing a disputed domain name from a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm't Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006).

 

Respondent lacks both rights and legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant's trademarks in any capacity and, as discussed below, there are no Policy ¶4(c) circumstances from which the Panel might find that Respondent has rights or interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. See Charter Communications Holding Company, LLC v. Taha Shaikh / Tskdesigners, FA 1814475 (Forum Nov. 25, 2018) (finding no rights or legitimate interests in <spectrumfeature.com> because complainant never gave respondent permission to use the mark in any manner and Panels may use these assertions as evidence that no rights or legitimate interests exist in a disputed domain name").

 

The WHOIS information for the at-issue domain name identifies "ana jame" as the domain name's registrant and the record before the Panel contains no evidence that tends to prove that Respondent is commonly known by the at-issue domain name. The Panel therefore concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by <adobe-creativity.com> for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Coppertown Drive-Thru Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089 (Forum July 17, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <coppertown.com> domain name where there was no evidence in the record, including the WHOIS information, suggesting that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name).

 

Respondent's <adobe-creativity.com> domain name redirects to an unrelated website at the domain name eliterealtymaya.com that purportedly offers online casino and gambling services. To participate, consumers must create an account by using embedded links on the website. There links redirect to sites requesting personal information such as name and telephone number. Respondent thus failed to use the domain name to promote a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Ripple Labs Inc. v. NGYEN NGOC PHUONG THAO, FA 1741737 (Forum Aug. 21, 2017) ("Respondent uses the [disputed] domain name to divert Internet users to Respondent's website… confusing them into believing that some sort of affiliation exists between it and Complainant… [which] is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)."); see also Morgan Stanley v. Bruce Pu, FA 1764120 (Forum Feb. 2, 2018) ("[T]he screenshot of the resolving webpage allows users to input their name and email address, which Complainant claims Respondent uses that to fraudulently phish for information. Thus, the Panel agrees that Respondent phishes for information and finds that Respondent does so in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).").

 

Given the forgoing, Respondent lacks rights and lacks legitimate interests in <adobe-creativity.com>.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

As discussed below without limitation, bad faith circumstances are present from which the Panel concludes that Respondent registered and used the at-issue domain name in bad faith pursuant to the Policy.

 

As mentioned above, Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to redirect internet traffic to a website unrelated to Complainant offering online casino and gambling services. Such use of the confusingly similar at-issue domain name shows Respondent's bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and Policy ¶4(b)(iv). See MySpace, Inc. v. Myspace Bot, FA 672161 (Forum May 19, 2006) (holding that the respondent registered and used the <myspacebot.com> domain name in bad faith by diverting internet users seeking the complainant's website to its own website for commercial gain because the respondent likely profited from this diversion scheme). As mentioned, to participate in the proffered online gambling services visitors are required to create an account via embedded links. The links redirect to websites requesting personal information. Respondent's subterfuge is used to deceive internet visitors into giving up private data to Respondent and the apparent phishing scheme provides additional evidence of Respondent's bad faith registration and use of <adobe-creativity.com> under the Policy. See Morgan Stanley v. Bruce Pu, FA 1764120 (Forum Feb. 2, 2018) ("[T]he screenshot of the resolving webpage allows users to input their name and email address, which Complainant claims Respondent uses that to fraudulently phish for information. Thus, the Panel agrees that Respondent phishes for information and finds that Respondent does so in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).").

 

Moreover, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the ADOBE mark when it registered <adobe-creativity.com> as a domain name. Respondent's actual knowledge is evident given the worldwide fame of Complainant's trademark and given Respondent's inclusion of the suggestive term "creativity" in at-issue domain name. Respondent's registration of <adobe-creativity.com> with knowledge of Complainant's trademark rights further demonstrates Respondent's bad faith registration and use of the at-issue domain name(s pursuant to Policy ¶ 4 (a)(iii). See Lemon Inc. v. Sumer Singh, FA 2110519 (Forum Sept. 5, 2024 ("registration of a disputed domain name with actual knowledge of another's trademark rights is sufficient to establish bad faith, and can be shown by the notoriety of the mark and the use the Respondent makes of the disputed domain name"); see also, Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name); see also, Univision Comm'cns Inc. v. Norte, FA 1000079 (Forum Aug. 16, 2007) (rejecting the respondent's contention that it did not register the disputed domain name in bad faith since the panel found that the respondent had knowledge of the complainant's rights in the UNIVISION mark when registering the disputed domain name).

 

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 <adobe-creativity.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist

Dated: April 16, 2025