Charter Communications Holding Company, LLC v. Imran Hossain
Claim Number: FA1905001843189
Complainant is Charter Communications Holding Company, LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Madelon Lapidus of Holland & Hart LLP, Colorado, USA. Respondent is Imran Hossain (“Respondent”), Bangladesh.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <spectrumtv.ltd>, registered with NameCheap, Inc.
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.
The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.) as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on May 14, 2019; the Forum received payment on May 14, 2019.
On May 15, 2019, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <spectrumtv.ltd> 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 May 16, 2019, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of June 5, 2019 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@spectrumtv.ltd. Also on May 16, 2019, 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, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On June 7, 2019, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed the Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.) as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the 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, the Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant is a telecommunications company providing services to over 26 million customers in the United States. Complainant has rights in the SPECTRUM TV mark through its registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 5,420,855, registered Mar. 13, 2018). Respondent’s <spectrumtv.ltd> is confusingly similar to Complainant’s SPECTRUM TV mark as the domain name features the mark in its entirety with the addition of a generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.LTD.”
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name because Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Respondent fails to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name. Instead the domain name falsely purports to be an authorized retailer of Complainant’s services.
Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith by resolving to a website purporting to sell Complainant’s services, claiming it was authorized by Complainant to do so. Respondent also used the domain name to trade on Complainant’s famous mark to confuse internet users into believing Respondent is affiliated with Complainant. Lastly, Respondent had knowledge of Complainant’ rights due to Complainant’s numerous and incontestable trademark registrations.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant is a telecommunications company providing services to over 26 million customers in the United States. Complainant has rights in the SPECTRUM TV mark through its registration with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 5,420,855, registered Mar. 13, 2018). Respondent’s <spectrumtv.ltd> is confusingly similar to Complainant’s SPECTRUM TV mark.
Respondent registered the <spectrumtv.ltd> domain name on December 14, 2018.
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <spectrumtv.ltd> domain name. The domain name falsely purports to be an authorized retailer of Complainant’s services.
Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name 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."
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”).
Complainant has rights in the SPECTRUM TV mark through its registrations with the USPTO. Registration of a mark with the USPTO is sufficient to demonstrate rights in a mark per 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 <spectrumtv.ltd> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s SPECTRUM TV marks as the domain name features the mark in its entirety with the addition of a generic gTLD “.LTD”.
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <spectrumtv.ltd> domain name. Complainant did not authorize Respondent to use Complainant’s SPECTRUM TV mark. The WHOIS information identifies Respondent as “Imran Hossain.” WHOIS information may be used to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Chevron Intellectual Property LLC v. Fred Wallace, FA1506001626022 (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). Further, lack of authorization to use a complainant’s mark may support a finding that the respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. See Navistar International Corporation v. N Rahmany, FA1505001620789 (Forum June 8, 2015) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name where the complainant had never authorized the respondent to incorporate its NAVISTAR mark in any domain name registration). Therefore, Respondent is not commonly known by the <spectrumtv.ltd> domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
Respondent has failed to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name. Instead the <spectrumtv.ltd> domain name falsely purports to be an authorized retailer of Complainant’s services. Panels have held in the past that using a domain name to sell products related to complainant is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii). See Fadal Engineering, LLC v. DANIEL STRIZICH,INDEPENDENT TECHNOLOGY SERVICE INC, FA 1581942 (Forum Nov. 13, 2014) (finding that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain to sell products related to Complainant without authorization “does not amount to a bona fide offering of goods or services under policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”). Here, Complainant has provided screenshots of Respondent’s domain name that show products being offered that bear Complainant’s mark.
Respondent registered the <spectrumtv.ltd> domain name in bad faith by resolving to a website that purports to sell complainant’s services. Panels have held that using a domain name to create a likelihood of confusion with complainant’s mark and a domain name is bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Fanuc Ltd v. Mach. Control Servs., FA 93667 (Forum Mar. 13, 2000) (finding that the respondent violated Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark by using a domain name identical to the complainant’s mark to sell the complainant’s products).
Complainant argues that Respondent’s use of the domain name is intended to trade off of Complainant’s SPECTRUM TV mark and confuse internet users into thinking Respondent is licensed or affiliated with Complainant. Panels have held in the past that passing off and offering competing goods or services is evidence of bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Guess? IP Holder L.P. and Guess?, Inc. v. LI FANGLIN, FA 1610067 (Forum Apr. 25, 2015) (finding respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) because the respondent used the resolving website to sell the complainant’s products, using images copied directly from the complainant’s website). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and used the <spectrumtv.ltd> in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).
Respondent registered the <spectrumtv.ltd> domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s SPECTRUM TV mark. Therefore, Respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Immigration Equality v. Brent, FA 1103571 (Forum Jan. 11, 2008) ("That Respondent proceeded to register a domain name identical to, and with prior knowledge of Complainant's mark is sufficient to prove bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).")."
Complainant having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <spectrumtv.ltd> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.), Panelist
Dated: June 21, 2019
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page