DECISION

 

Charter Communications Holding Company, LLC v. Sam Smith / mW3h a31Q

Claim Number: FA2506002160714

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Charter Communications Holding Company, LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Craig A. Beaker of Holland & Hart LLP, Colorado, USA. Respondent is Sam Smith / mW3h a31Q ("Respondent"), Philippines.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES 

The domain names at issue are <panel-spectrum.net>, <spectrum-ticket.net>, and <841932-spectrumwireless.com>, registered with Dynadot 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.

 

Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on June 13, 2025; Forum received payment on June 13, 2025.

 

On June 17, 2025, Dynadot Inc confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <panel-spectrum.net>, <spectrum-ticket.net>, and <841932-spectrumwireless.com> domain names are registered with Dynadot Inc and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Dynadot Inc has verified that Respondent is bound by the Dynadot 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 June 23, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 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@panel-spectrum.net, postmaster@spectrum-ticket.net, and postmaster@841932-spectrumwireless.com. Also on June 23, 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 15, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Sandra J. Franklin 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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PRELIMINARY ISSUE: MULTIPLE RESPONDENTS

Complainant alleges that the disputed domain names are registered to and/or controlled by the same person or entity, operating under multiple aliases. Pursuant to UDRP Rule 3(c), the complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder. In this case, the disputed domain names were registered using the same registrar, the same privacy shield service, and the same server provided by Cloudflare. The registrant information for the disputed domain names shows that all three share the same phone number, city, state, zip, and country information.  Two of the disputed domain names were registered on May 11, 2025, and the other shortly thereafter on June 1, 2025. The disputed domain names resolve to the same content. Therefore, the Panel finds that the named Respondents, "Sam Smith / mW3h a31Q" are the same person or entity and will refer to them as Respondent.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

1.       Respondent's <panel-spectrum.net>, <spectrum-ticket.net>, and <841932-spectrumwireless.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant's SPECTRUM mark.

 

2.       Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <panel-spectrum.net>, <spectrum-ticket.net>, and <841932-spectrumwireless.com> domain names.

 

3.       Respondent registered and uses the <panel-spectrum.net>, <spectrum-ticket.net>, and <841932-spectrumwireless.com> domain names in bad faith.

 

B. Respondent did not file a Response.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant holds registrations for the SPECTRUM mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") (e.g. Reg. No. 4,591,882, registered August 26, 2014).

 

Respondent registered the <panel-spectrum.net>, <spectrum-ticket.net>, and <841932-spectrumwireless.com> domain names between May 11 and June 1, 2025, and uses them to distribute malware.

 

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 Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the SPECTRUM mark based on registration with the USPTO.  See Brooks Sports, Inc. v. Joyce Cheadle, FA 1819065 (Forum Dec. 28, 2018) (finding that Complainant's registration of the BROOKS mark with the USPTO sufficiently conferred its rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)).

 

Respondent's <panel-spectrum.net>, <spectrum-ticket.net>, and <841932-spectrumwireless.com> domain names all use Complainant's SPECTRUM mark and add a hyphen, a generic or descriptive word, and numbers in one case, along with a top-level domain. These changes do not sufficiently distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Ant Small and Micro Financial Services Group Co., Ltd. v. Ant Fin, FA 1759326 (Forum Jan. 2, 2018) ("Respondent's <antfinancial-investorrelations.com> Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant's ANT FINANCIAL mark.  It incorporates the mark entirely.  It adds a hyphen, the descriptive terms "investor relations," and the ".com" gTLD, but these additions are insufficient to distinguish the Domain name from complainant's mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).") The Panel therefore finds that Respondent's <panel-spectrum.net>, <spectrum-ticket.net>, and <841932-spectrumwireless.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant's SPECTRUM mark.

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Once Complainant makes a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)); see also Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) ("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.").

 

Complainant argues that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <panel-spectrum.net>, <spectrum-ticket.net>, and <841932-spectrumwireless.com> domain names because Respondent is not commonly known by the domain names and is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant's SPECTRUM mark. The WHOIS information for the disputed domain names lists the registrant as "Sam Smith / mW3h a31Q". Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names, and thus has no rights under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Chevron Intellectual Property LLC v. Fred Wallace, FA 1626022 (Forum July 27, 2015) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <chevron-europe.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), as the WHOIS information named "Fred Wallace" as registrant of the disputed domain name); see also The Toronto-Dominion Bank v. RD BANK /-, FA 1554468 (Forum May 13, 2014) ("WHOIS information for the <rdbank.com> domain name lists 'RD BANK /-' as the domain name's registrant. However, there is nothing in the record that corroborates the WHOIS data's suggestion that Respondent may be commonly known by the <rdbank.com> domain name). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).").

 

Complainant also argues that Respondent does not use the <panel-spectrum.net>, <spectrum-ticket.net>, and <841932-spectrumwireless.com> domain names for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, as Respondent uses the domain name to distribute malware. Using a disputed domain name to distribute malware is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.  See aTP-LINK SYSTEMS INC. v. Karl Schnurch / EdenMedia, FA2152582 (Forum May 22, 2025) ("Using a disputed domain name to distribute malware does not support any rights or legitimate interests for a respondent under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)."); see also Maxim Integrated Products, Inc. v. Milen Radumilo, FA2051067 (Forum July 31, 2023) (finding no bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use where the respondent used the disputed domain name to distribute malware in a scheme that involved a popup asking users to complete a CAPTCHA). Complainant provides screenshots showing that the disputed domain names prompt users to download malware through a "human verification" pop-up window which executes "Lumma Stealer" malware. The Panel finds that this is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use and thus Respondent lacks rights under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).  

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Complainant argues that Respondent's use of the disputed domain names to distribute malware constitutes bad faith. The Panel agrees and finds bad faith registration and use. See Law School Admission Council, Inc. v. True Magic LLC, FA 2137886 (Forum Feb. 21, 2025) ("Offering malware via a domain name containing a complainant's mark is bad faith under the Policy.")

 

Complainant argues that Respondent registered the <panel-spectrum.net>, <spectrum-ticket.net>, and <841932-spectrumwireless.com> domain names with actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the SPECTRUM mark. The Panel agrees, noting the fame of the SPECTRUM mark, and finds that Respondent registered the disputed domain names in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Dell Inc. v. Austin, FA1877900 (Forum Feb. 3, 2020) ("In the present case, Complainant's trademark is famous. It is difficult to envisage any use of the disputed domain name that would not violate the Policy.")

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied 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 <panel-spectrum.net>, <spectrum-ticket.net>, and <841932-spectrumwireless.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist

Dated: July 17, 2025