DECISION

 

Charter Communications Holding Company, LLC v. David Dalton

Claim Number: FA2506002160089

 

PARTIES

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

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <getspectrumonline.site>, registered with HOSTINGER operations, UAB.

 

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.

 

Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on June 10, 2025; Forum received payment on June 10, 2025.

 

On June 11, 2025, HOSTINGER operations, UAB confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <getspectrumonline.site> domain name is registered with HOSTINGER operations, UAB and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. HOSTINGER operations, UAB has verified that Respondent is bound by the HOSTINGER operations, UAB 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 June 13, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 3, 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@getspectrumonline.site. Also on June 13, 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 July 7, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. 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

i) Complainant is a major telecommunications provider serving nearly 32 million customers across 41 U.S. states, offering television, Internet, and voice communication services. Since at least 2014, Complainant has used the SPECTRUM marks in connection with its Internet, cable, and phone services and has made substantial investments in advertising and promotion, including through its official website. Complainant holds rights in the SPECTRUM marks, inter alia, by virtue of its registration with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 4,956,860, registered on May 10, 2016). The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark, as it incorporates the well-known SPECTRUM mark in its entirety, together with the generic terms "get" and "online," and the generic top-level domain ".site."

 

ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Complainant authorized or licensed Respondent to use the SPECTRUM mark in any manner. Respondent is not using the disputed domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services, nor for any legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, Respondent employed the disputed domain name to impersonate Complainant and falsely suggest an association with Complainant by using the SPECTRUM marks and referencing services branded under the SPECTRUM name.

 

iii) Registration and use of a domain name confusingly similar to Complainant's mark, despite actual or constructive knowledge of Complainant's rights, constitutes bad faith. Respondent used the disputed domain name and Complainant's SPECTRUM marks to operate a deceptive website purporting to offer Internet, television, and mobile phone services under the SPECTRUM brand to Complainant's customers. Such conduct disrupted Complainant's business and amounted to passing off and impersonation of Complainant. Furthermore, Respondent has used the disputed domain name to engage in phishing by collecting personal information, including email addresses, presumably to defraud potential customers of Complainant, commit identity theft, or pursue other fraudulent activity.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent did not submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

1. The disputed domain name was registered on December 22, 2024.

 

2. Complainant has established rights in the SPECTRUM marks, inter alia, through its registration with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 4,956,860, registered on May 10, 2016).

 

3. Respondent uses the disputed domain name to impersonate Complainant and falsely suggest an affiliation, including by employing Complainant's SPECTRUM marks and referencing services offered under the SPECTRUM brand.

 

4. Most of the menu functions on the website associated with the disputed domain name are inoperative.

 

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

Complainant asserts rights in the SPECTRUM marks, inter alia, through its registration with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 4,956,860, registered on May 10, 2016). Registration of a trademark with the USPTO is generally sufficient to demonstrate rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Since Complainant has provided evidence of trademark registrations with the USPTO, the Panel finds Complainant has established rights in the marks pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Complainant contends that the disputed domain name <getspectrumonline.site> is confusingly similar to Complainant's SPECTRUM mark because it incorporates Complainant's well-known SPECTRUM mark in its entirety, along with the generic terms "get" and "online," and the ".site" generic top-level domain. The addition of a generic term and a gTLD does not serve to distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Skechers U.S.A., Inc. and Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II v. Svensson Viljae, FA 1784650 (Forum June 1, 2018) (finding confusing similarity where "The disputed domain name <skechers-outlet.com> adds a hyphen and the generic term 'outlet' to Complainant's registered SKECHERS mark, and appends the '.com' top-level domain."). Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's SPECTRUM mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Section 2.1, WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 ("Where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element.").

 

Complainant argues that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name as Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Respondent been authorized by Complainant to use Complainant's mark, and Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant. Relevant information, such as WHOIS information, can be used as evidence to show a respondent is or is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). The Panel notes that the unmasked WHOIS data lists "David Dalton" as the registrant, and there is no evidence in the record to suggest Respondent was authorized to use the mark. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

Complainant asserts that Respondent is not using the disputed domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services, nor for any legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, Respondent engages in conduct intended to pass itself off as Complainant. Specifically, Respondent uses the disputed domain name to impersonate Complainant and falsely suggest an association with Complainant. The replication of Complainant's website does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii). See Ripple Labs Inc. v. Jessie McKoy / Ripple Reserve Fund, FA 1790949 (Forum July 9, 2018) (finding that the respondent did not use the domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) where the website resolving from the disputed domain name featured the complainant's mark and related content).

 

Complainant has submitted screenshots of both its official website and the website resolving from the disputed domain name, which display Complainant's SPECTRUM marks and falsely suggest an affiliation with Complainant. Respondent has used Complainant's SPECTRUM marks and referenced services branded under the SPECTRUM name to mislead users into visiting a website unaffiliated with Complainant that offers competing services. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent is not using the disputed domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services or for any legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii).

 

The Panel concludes that Complainant has established a prima facie case based on the foregoing circumstances. All of the above considerations support a prima facie finding against Respondent. As Respondent has not submitted a Response or otherwise rebutted the prima facie case, the Panel concludes that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Complainant asserts that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith by disrupting Complainant's business and passing itself off as Complainant while purporting to offer television and mobile phone services. Directing Internet users to a website that imitates a complainant's official website and thereby misleads users into believing that the respondent is the complainant or is otherwise affiliated or associated with the complainant supports a finding of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Bittrex, Inc. v. Wuxi Yilian LLC, FA 1760517 (Forum Dec. 27, 2017) (finding bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where "Respondent registered and uses the <lbittrex.com> domain name in bad faith by directing Internet users to a website that mimics Complainant's own website in order to confuse users into believing that Respondent is Complainant, or is otherwise affiliated or associated with Complainant."); see also The Prudential Insurance Company of America v. Henrique Bryan Souza / DATAMIX ENSINO DE INFORMATICA, FA 1718308 (Forum Apr. 3, 2017) (finding bad faith where the respondent used the disputed domain name to resolve to a website that imitated the complainant's mark, logo, and color scheme to create a "strikingly similar" website).

 

The Panel notes that Complainant has submitted screenshots of both its official website and the website resolving from the disputed domain name. These screenshots display Complainant's SPECTRUM marks and falsely suggest an affiliation with Complainant, including by employing the SPECTRUM marks and referencing SPECTRUM-branded services. Respondent's conduct misled users into accessing a website unaffiliated with Complainant that offers services directly competing with those of Complainant. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv).

 

Complainant further contends that the registration of the disputed domain name, which is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark, despite Respondent's knowledge of Complainant's rights, constitutes bad faith registration and use. The Panel observes that Complainant is a major telecommunications company providing services to nearly 32 million customers across 41 U.S. states, including television, Internet, and voice communications. Since at least 2014, Complainant has used the SPECTRUM marks in connection with its Internet, cable, and phone services and has made substantial investments in advertising and promotion, including through its official website.

 

In light of the widespread recognition of Complainant's mark and the nature of Respondent's use of the disputed domain name, the Panel infers that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the SPECTRUM mark at the time of registration. Accordingly, the Panel concludes that Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

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 <getspectrumonline.site> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq., Panelist

Dated: July 8, 2025