Coupang Corporation v. Hyung Jun Lim
Claim Number: FA1906001847602
Complainant is Coupang Corporation (“Complainant”), represented by B. Brett Heavner of Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, Washington, DC, United States of America. Respondent is Hyung Jun Lim (“Respondent”), South Korea.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <coupamg.com>, registered with Megazone Corp., dba HOSTING.KR.
The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially, and, to the best of his knowledge, has no conflict of interests in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Terry F. Peppard as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on June 12, 2019; the Forum received payment on June 12, 2019.
On June 13, 2019, Megazone Corp., dba HOSTING.KR confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <coupamg.com> domain name is registered with Megazone Corp., dba HOSTING.KR and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Megazone Corp., dba HOSTING.KR has verified that Respondent is bound by the Megazone Corp., dba HOSTING.KR 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 17, 2019, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 8, 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@coupamg.com. Also on June 17, 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 July 11, 2019, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Terry F. Peppard as sole Panelist in this proceeding.
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 a response from Respondent.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant operates in the online retail shopping industry.
Complainant holds a registration for the COUPANG service mark, which is on file with the Korean Intellectual Property Office as Registry No. 0224196, registered January 3, 2012.
Respondent registered the domain name <coupamg.com> on or about August 14, 2013.
The domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s COUPANG mark.
Respondent is not licensed or otherwise authorized to use Complainant’s COUPANG mark.
Respondent has not been commonly known by the domain name.
Respondent fails to use the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.
Respondent uses the webpage resolving from the domain name to profit from the promotion of online escort services.
Respondent lacks rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name.
The domain name is an instance of typo-squatting.
Respondent knew of Complainant’s rights in the COUPANG mark prior to registering the domain name.
Respondent registered and uses the domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Preliminary Issue: Language of the proceeding
The Registration Agreement governing the challenged domain name is written in Korean. Rule 11(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy would, therefore, in the ordinary course, require that this proceeding be conducted in the Korean language. However, Rule 11(a) also provides that, “having regard to the circumstances of the administrative proceeding,” the Panel may determine that another language be designated the language of the proceeding.
Complainant requests in its Complaint that English be designated the language of this proceeding because English is the working language of Complainant’s representative, and because the domain name here in issue is rendered in English, as well as because to require Complainant to translate all pertinent documents of the proceeding into Korean would impose on it an inordinate burden of cost and time, while Respondent has not offered any reason why conducting the proceeding in English would impose on it any foreseeable harm.
Inasmuch as Respondent does not object to Complainant’s request, and inasmuch as no reason to the contrary appears in the record, we determine and direct that the language of this proceeding shall be English.
(1) the domain name registered by Respondent is confusingly similar to a service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
(2) Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(3) the same domain name was registered and is being used by Respondent 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:
i. the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
ii. Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
iii. the domain name has been registered and is being used by Respondent in bad faith.
In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel will, pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules, decide this proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations, and, pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, draw such inferences as it deems appropriate. The Panel is entitled to accept as true all reasonable claims and inferences set out in the Complaint unless the supporting evidence is manifestly contradictory. See, for example, Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Forum July 31, 2000) (finding that a respondent’s failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of a UDRP complaint to be deemed true). But see 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 COUPANG service mark sufficient for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) by virtue of its registration of the mark with a national trademark authority, the Korean Intellectual Property Office. See, for example, DIRECTV, LLC v. The Pearline Group, FA 1818749 (Forum December 30, 2018):
Complainant’s ownership of a … [national]… registration for …[its mark]… demonstrates its rights in such mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Turning to the central question posed by Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), we conclude from a review of the record that Respondent’s <coupamg.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s COUPANG service mark. The domain name incorporates the mark in its entirety, merely replacing the letter “n” with the letter “m” and adding the generic Top Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com.” These changes to the mark in the process of creating the domain name, do not avoid a finding confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See, for example, Omaha Steaks International, Inc. v. DN Manager / Whois-Privacy.Net Ltd, FA 1610122 (Forum July 9, 2015):
The domain name differs from the mark only in that the domain name substitutes the letter ‘a’ in the word ‘steak’ with the letter ‘c’ and adds the generic Top Level Domain (‘gTLD’) ‘.com.’ These alterations of the mark, made in forming the domain name, do not save it from the realm of confusing similarity under the standards of the Policy.
Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must make out a prima facie showing that Respondent lacks rights to and legitimate interests in the contested <coupamg.com> domain name, whereupon the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have such rights or interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum August 18, 2006) (finding that a UDRP complainant must make a prima facie case that a respondent lacks rights to or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name under UDRP ¶ 4(a)(ii) before the burden shifts to that respondent to show that it does have such rights or interests). See also AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Forum September 25, 2006):
Complainant must … make a prima facie showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names, which burden is light. If Complainant satisfies its burden, … the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain names.
Complainant has made a sufficient prima facie showing under this head of the Policy. Respondent’s failure to respond to the Complaint therefore permits us to infer that Respondent does not have rights to or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. See Desotec N.V. v. Jacobi Carbons AB, D2000-1398 (WIPO December 21, 2000) (finding that a respondent’s failure to respond to a UDRP complaint allows a presumption that a complainant’s allegations are true unless they are clearly contradicted by the evidence). Nonetheless, we will examine the record before us, in light of the several considerations set out in Policy ¶4(c)(i)-(iii), to determine whether there is in it any basis for concluding that Respondent has rights to or legitimate interests in the contested domain name that are cognizable under the Policy.
We begin by noting that Complainant contends, and Respondent does not deny, that Respondent has not been commonly known by the disputed <coupamg.com> domain name, and that Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use the COUPANG mark. Moreover, the pertinent WHOIS information identifies the registrant of the domain name only as “Hyung Jun Lim,” which does not resemble the domain name. On this record, we conclude that Respondent has not been commonly known by the disputed domain name so as to have acquired rights to or legitimate interests in it within the ambit of Policy ¶4(c)(ii). See, for example, Google LLC v. Bhawana Chandel / Admission Virus, FA 1799694 (Forum September 4, 2018) (concluding that a respondent was not commonly known by a disputed domain name incorporating the GOOGLE mark where the relevant WHOIS record identified that respondent as “Bhawana Chandel,” and nothing in the record showed that that respondent was authorized to use a UDRP Complainant’s mark in any manner). See also Navistar International Corporation v. N Rahmany, FA 620789 (Forum June 8, 2015) (finding, under Policy ¶4(c)(ii), that a respondent was not commonly known by a disputed domain name where a UDRP complainant had not authorized that respondent to incorporate its mark in a domain name).
We next observe that Complainant asserts, again without objection from Respondent, that Respondent’s <coupamg.com> domain name resolves to a webpage that promotes online escort services for the commercial benefit of Respondent. This employment is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services by means of the domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of it under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) such as would confirm in Respondent rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name as provided in those subsections of the Policy. See, for example, Golden Bear Int’l, Inc. v. Kangdeock-ho, FA 190644 (Forum October 17, 2003):
Respondent's use of a domain name confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark to divert Internet users to websites unrelated to Complainant's business does not represent 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).
The Panel therefore finds that Complainant has satisfied the proof requirements of Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
We are persuaded by the evidence that Respondent uses the challenged <coupamg.com> domain name, which we have found to be confusingly similar to Complainant’s COUPANG service mark, to profit from the confusion thus caused among Internet users as to the possibility of Complainant’s association with the domain name. Under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv), this stands as proof of Respondent’s bad faith in registering and using the domain name. See, for example, Dovetail Ventures, LLC v. Klayton Thorpe, FA1625786 (Forum August 2, 2015) (finding that a respondent acted in bad faith, within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv), where it used a disputed domain name to host a variety of hyperlinks, all unrelated to a UDRP complainant’s business, through which that respondent presumably gained commercially).
We are also convinced by the evidence that Respondent knew of Complainant and its rights in the COUPANG service mark when Respondent registered the <coupamg.com> domain name. Particularly telling in this regard is the undenied assertion of the Complaint that Respondent registered the domain name on the same day that Forbes magazine published an online article entitled “How an E-Commerce King [Complainant] is Conquering Korea.” For Respondent to have registered a domain name confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark in such circumstances strongly indicates that the domain name was registered in bad faith. See Zynga Inc. v. Ryan G Foo / PPA Media Services, FA 1650448 (Forum January 14, 2016), finding that a respondent registered a domain name in bad faith where that respondent “registered the … domain name the same day Complainant announced it received … funding from outside investors and acquired the then largest virtual world game on social networks.”
Finally, under this head of the Policy, the <coupamg.com> domain name is an instance of typo-squatting, i.e.: the deliberate misspelling of the mark of another in a domain name in order to take advantage of typing errors commonly made by Internet users in entering into their web browsers the names of enterprises with which they wish to do business online. Typo-squatting is itself evidence of bad faith registration and use of a domain name. See, for example, Vanguard Trademark Holdings USA LLC v. Shuai Wei Xu / Xu Shuai Wei, FA 1784238 (Forum June 1, 2018) (finding that a respondent engaged in typo-squatting, and thus registered and used disputed domain names in bad faith, where the domain names consisted of a UDRP complainant’s mark with evident typographical errors).
The Panel thus finds that Complainant has met its obligations of proof under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Complainant having established all three elements required to be proven under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that the relief requested must be, and it is hereby, GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <coupamg.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED forthwith from Respondent to Complainant.
Terry F. Peppard, Panelist
Dated: July 20, 2019
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page