T. Rowe Price Group, Inc. v. Lee Black
Claim Number: FA1909001864069
Complainant is T. Rowe Price Group, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by David M. Kramer of DLA Piper LLP (US), District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is Lee Black (“Respondent”), Japan.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <rtoweprice.com>, registered with GMO Internet, Inc. d/b/a Onamae.com.
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.
Darryl C. Wilson, as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on September 25, 2019; the Forum received payment on September 25, 2019.
On September 26, 2019, GMO Internet, Inc. d/b/a Onamae.com confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <rtoweprice.com> domain name is registered with GMO Internet, Inc. d/b/a Onamae.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GMO Internet, Inc. d/b/a Onamae.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the GMO Internet, 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 October 2, 2019, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of October 22, 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@rtoweprice.com. Also, on October 2, 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 October 24, 2019 pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Darryl C. Wilson 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.
Panel Note: Supported Language Request
The Panel notes that Complainant requests that the language of this administrative proceeding proceed in the English language pursuant to UDRP Rule 11(a). Complainant makes this request in light of the Japanese language Registration Agreement. Pursuant to UDRP Rule 11(a), the Panel finds that persuasive evidence has been adduced by Complainant to suggest the likely possibility that the Respondent is conversant and proficient in the English language. After considering the circumstance of the present case, the Panel finds that the proceeding should be in English.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant is a global leader in investment management services, with its global headquarters in Baltimore, Maryland. Complainant has rights in the T. ROWE PRICE mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 1,493,517, registered Jun. 21, 1988). Respondent’s <rtoweprice.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s T. ROWE PRICE mark as it merely transposes the letters “t” and “r,” while adding a “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <rtoweprice.com> domain name. Respondent is not licensed or permitted to use Complainant’s T. ROWE PRICE mark.
Respondent registered and uses the <rtoweprice.com> domain name in bad faith. Respondent attempts to disrupt Complainant’s business and attract, for commercial gain, users to the disputed domain name by creating a likelihood of confusion as to source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of Respondent’s website. Respondent also has engaged in typosquatting. Finally, Respondent’s use of the well-known T. ROWE PRICE mark constitutes opportunistic bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant is T. Rowe Price Group, Inc. (“Complainant”), of Baltimore, MD, USA. Complainant owns domestic and global registrations for the mark T. ROWE PRICE, and variations thereof constituting the family of T. Rowe Price marks, which Complainant has continuously used since at least as early as 1988, in connection with its provision of investment management goods and services.
Respondent is Lee Black (“Respondent”), of Osaka, Japan. Respondent’s registrar’s address is listed as Tokyo, Japan. The Panel notes that the <rtoweprice.com> domain name was registered on or about May 15, 2019.
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 claims rights in the T. ROW PRICE mark based upon registration of the mark with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 1,493,517, registered Jun. 21, 1988). Registration of a mark with the USPTO is sufficient to establish rights in that mark. See Home Depot Product Authority, LLC v. Samy Yosef / Express Transporting, FA 1738124 (Forum July 28, 2017) (finding that registration with the USPTO was sufficient to establish the complainant’s rights in the HOME DEPOT mark). The Panel here finds that Complainant’s registration of the T. ROWE PRICE mark with the USPTO is sufficient to establish rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant next argues Respondent’s <rtoweprice.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the T. ROWE PRICE mark, as the name incorporates the mark, merely transposing the letters “t” and “r,” while adding the “.com” gTLD. Such changes are not sufficient to distinguish a domain name from an incorporated mark in a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis. See Capital One Financial Corp. v. Huang Li Technology Corp c/o Dynadot, FA 1620197 (Forum June 16, 2015) (finding confusing similarity where the respondent misspelled the word “bank” by transposing the letters “a” and “n,” attached the gTLD “.com,” and eliminated spacing with respect to the CAPITAL ONE BANK mark to create the <capitalonebnak.com> domain name.). The Panel here finds that the <rtoweprice.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the T. ROWE PRICE mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Respondent raises no contentions with regards to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
The Complainant has proven this element.
The Panel notes that 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 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”).
The Panel here finds that Complainant has set forth the requisite prima facie case.
Complainant argues that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <rtoweprice.com> domain name, as Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use the T. ROWE PRICE mark in any way. Where a response is lacking, WHOIS information can support a finding that the respondent is not commonly known by a disputed domain name. See Philip Morris USA Inc. v. Usama Ramzan, FA 1737750 (Forum July 26, 2017) (“We begin by noting that Complainant contends, and Respondent does not deny, that Respondent has not been commonly known by the <marlborocoupon.us> domain name, and that Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use the MARLBORO mark in any way. Moreover, the pertinent WHOIS information identifies the registrant of the domain name only as “Usama Ramzan,” which does not resemble the domain name. On this record, we conclude that Respondent has not been commonly known by the challenged domain name so as to have acquired rights to or legitimate interests in it within the purview of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).”). The WHOIS information of record identifies the registrant of the disputed domain name as “Lee Black,” and no information on the record indicates Respondent was authorized to register a domain name incorporating Complainant’s mark. The Panel here finds that under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) Respondent has not been commonly known by the <rtoweprice.com> domain name.
Respondent raises no contentions with regards to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
The Complainant has proven this element.
Complainant contends that Respondent’s bad faith is indicated by its use of the <rtoweprice.com> domain name to disrupt Complainant business and commercially benefit by creating confusion as to source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of Respondent’s website. Complainant’s contention raises the point that use of a domain name to resolve to a page of third-party links can demonstrate a respondent’s bad faith per Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv). See Health Republic Insurance Company v. Above.com Legal, FA1506001622088 (Forum July 10, 2015) (“The use of a domain name’s resolving website to host links to competitors of a complainant shows intent to disrupt that complainant’s business, thereby showing bad faith in use and registration under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).”); see also Staples, Inc. and Staples the Office Superstores, LLC v. HANNA EL HIN / DTAPLES.COM, FA1404001557007 (Forum June 6, 2014) (“Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the <dtaples.com> domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) because the Respondent is using the disputed domain name to host third-party links to Complainant’s competitors from which Respondent is presumed to obtain some commercial benefit.”); Plain Green, LLC v. wenqiang tang, FA1505001621656 (Forum July 1, 2015) (finding that the respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to feature generic third-party hyperlinks constituted bad faith according to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)). Complainant here contends the disputed domain name resolves to a webpage displaying links to third party websites. Complainant further argues that when users click on these links, they are redirected to a browser hijacker called “MySecurify” that is designed to trick users into installing applications that record their web browsing activity. The Panel here finds that Respondent has registered and used the domain name in bad faith per Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and/or (iv).
Furthermore, Complainant contends that Respondent’s registration of the <rtoweprice.com> domain name constitutes typosquatting, which is further evidence of bad faith. Registration of a disputed domain name that contains a minor misspelling of a complainant’s mark may support a finding of bad faith registration under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Homer TLC, Inc. v. Artem Ponomarev, FA1506001623825 (Forum July 20, 2015) (“Finally, under this head of the Policy, it is evident that the <homededpot.com> domain name is an instance of typosquatting, which is the deliberate misspelling of the mark of another in a domain name, done to take advantage of common typing errors made by Internet users in entering into a web browser the name of an enterprise with which they would like to do business online. Typosquatting is independent evidence of bad faith in the registration and use of a domain name.”). The Panel again notes that Complainant argues Respondent incorporates the T. ROWE PRICE mark, but merely switches the letters “t” and “r” in the mark. The Panel here finds that Respondent’s domain names is indicative of typosquatting which further supports the conclusion that Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Respondent raises no contentions with regards to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
The Complainant has proven this element.
As the Complainant has established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that Complainant’s requested relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <rtoweprice.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Darryl C. Wilson, Panelist
Dated: November 7, 2019
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page