DECISION
Charter Communications Holding Company, LLC v. yuse takato
Claim Number: FA2607002236497
PARTIES
Complainant is Charter Communications Holding Company, LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Julie Kent of Holland & Hart LLP, Colorado, USA. Respondent is yuse takato ("Respondent"), Japan.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <spectruminternet.online>, registered with GMO Internet Group, Inc. d/b/a Onamae.com.
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.
Adam Taylor as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on July 31, 2026; Forum received payment on July 31, 2026.
On August 4, 2026, GMO Internet Group, Inc. d/b/a Onamae.com confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <spectruminternet.online> domain name is registered with GMO Internet Group, Inc. d/b/a Onamae.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GMO Internet Group, Inc. d/b/a Onamae.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the GMO Internet Group, Inc. d/b/a Onamae.com 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 August 11, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Japanese and English Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 31, 2026, 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@spectruminternet.online. Also on August 11, 2026, the Japanese and English 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 in Japanese and English.
On September 1, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Adam Taylor 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.
PRELIMINARY ISSUE: LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDING
Pursuant to paragraph 11 of the Rules, unless otherwise agreed by the parties or specified otherwise in the registration agreement, the default language of the proceeding is the language of the registration agreement, subject to the authority of the panel to determine otherwise, having regard to the circumstances of the administrative proceeding.
The language of the registration agreement for the disputed domain name is Japanese. There is no indication that the registration agreement specifies that any other language should apply and there has been no agreement between the parties that the proceedings should be in English.
The Complainant has requested that English be the language of the proceeding and has submitted the Complaint in English.
WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.1 at ¶ 4.5.1 sets out certain scenarios that panels have considered warranted proceeding in a language other than that of the registration agreement.
In this case, the Panel notes the following:
1. the language/script of the disputed domain name and Complainant's mark are both in English;
2. the webpage under the disputed domain name is in English;
3. Respondent has used the disputed domain name to target a United States-based entity (see the Panel's conclusion under the third element below); and
4. Respondent has not appeared in this proceeding to object to Complainant's request that English be the language of the proceeding.
Taking all these matters together, the Panel concludes that in the circumstances there is a reasonable likelihood that Respondent is conversant in the English language, that Respondent is unlikely to be prejudiced should English be adopted as the language of the proceeding and that to require translation of the Complaint would be potentially unfair, involving undue cost and delay to the case.
Accordingly, in accordance with paragraph 11 of the Rules, the Panel determines that English should be the language of the proceeding.
PARTIES' CONTENTIONS
A. Complainant
Complainant contends that it has rights in the SPECTRUM mark based upon registration of that mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO"). The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark.
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent has not used the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; on the contrary, Respondent has used the disputed domain name for phishing, malware or other fraudulent purposes, as well as for pornography. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Respondent has not made legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. Complainant has never authorized Respondent to use Complainant's mark.
Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent's actual knowledge of Complainant's mark is evidenced by Complainant's numerous trademark registrations and longstanding use. Respondent has used the disputed domain name to create a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark for commercial gain. Respondent's use of the disputed domain name for fraud and pornography constitutes bad faith use aside from the specific factors under Policy ¶ 4(b). Respondent has engaged in a pattern of bad faith registrations.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
FINDINGS
Complainant operates a website at www.spectrum.com.
The disputed domain name was registered on June 27, 2026.
Between July 22, 2026, and July 28, 2026, the disputed domain name resolved to dynamically changing websites accompanied by a series of pop-up notices with security warnings inviting users to click on links allegedly designed to "protect" their devices, likely for the purposes of phishing/malware. The disputed domain name was also used to resolve to pornography sites.
The Respondent has been found to have registered and used domain names in bad faith in at least two other cases under the Policy: Workday, Inc. v. yuse takato / takato yuse, FA 2090081 (Forum Apr. 24, 2024) and Societe des Produits Nestle v. Yuse Takato, CAC-UDRP-108708 (Czech Arb. Ct. July 16, 2026).
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 3.1 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
Since Complainant has provided evidence of registration of the SPECTRUM mark with the USPTO, the Panel finds that Complainant has rights in that mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's distinctive SPECTRUM mark and adds the term "internet". It is well established under the Policy that the incorporation of a recognizable complainant's mark in its entirety may be sufficient to establish confusing similarity, even when combined with additional terms. 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.").
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 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 fails to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or for legitimate noncommercial or fair use.
As discussed under the third element below, the Panel considers that Respondent uses the disputed domain name for phishing or other fraudulent purposes. Such activity is plainly not bona fide. Nor does it qualify as legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See Allianz of Am. Corp. v. Bond, FA 690796 (Forum June 12, 2006) (holding that the respondent's use of the <allianzcorp.biz> domain name to fraudulently acquire the personal and financial information of Internet users seeking Complainant's financial services was not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)).
Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services, or for legitimate noncommercial or fair use, under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).
WHOIS information may be used to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Braun Corp. v. Loney, FA 699652 (Forum July 7, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain names where the WHOIS information, as well as all other information in the record, gave no indication that the respondent was commonly known by the domain names, and the complainant had not authorized the respondent to register a domain name containing its registered mark).
The WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the registrant as "yuse takato" and there is no other information on the record indicating that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
Complainant has supplied evidence indicating that Respondent has used the disputed domain name for phishing or other fraudulent purposes. Such activity constitutes registration and use in bad faith. See Hess Corp. v. GR, FA 770909 (Forum Sept. 19, 2006) (finding that respondent demonstrated bad faith registration and use because it was attempting to acquire the personal and financial information of Internet users through a confusingly similar domain name).
The Panel also notes that Respondent has been found to have registered and used domain names in bad faith in at least two previous cases under the Policy.
Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent has registered, and is using, 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 <spectruminternet.online> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Adam Taylor, Panelist
Dated: September 14, 2026
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page