Swagelok Company v. lin yunfei / cai jiangtao
Claim Number: FA2001001878128
Complainant is Swagelok Company (“Complainant”), represented by Brendon P. Friesen of Mansour Gavin LPA, United States. Respondent is lin yunfei / cai jiangtao (“Respondent”), China.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <fswagelok.com>, registered with OnlineNIC, Inc.
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 January 8, 2020; the Forum received payment on January 8, 2020.
On January 9, 2020, OnlineNIC, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <fswagelok.com> domain name is registered with OnlineNIC, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. OnlineNIC, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the OnlineNIC, 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 January 9, 2020, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of January 29, 2020 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@fswagelok.com. Also on January 9, 2020, 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 January 31, 2020, 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 develops, manufactures and distributes fluid system products and related services.
Complainant holds a registration for the SWAGELOK service mark, which is on file with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) as Registry No. 3,4875,160, registered August 19, 2008, and renewed as of July 27, 2018.
Respondent registered the domain name <fswagelok.com> on or about November 30, 2019.
The domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s SWAGELOK mark.
Respondent has not been commonly known by the domain name.
Complainant has not granted Respondent permission to use the SWAGELOK mark in a domain name.
Respondent fails to use the domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.
Instead, Respondent uses the domain name to resolve to a website featuring explicit adult content.
Respondent has neither rights to nor legitimate interests in the domain name.
Respondent’s use of the domain name disrupts Complainant’s business.
Respondent’s employment of the domain name is an attempt to profit financially from the confusion caused among Internet users as to the possibility of Complainant’s association with it.
Respondent knew of Complainant’s rights in the SWAGELOK mark when it registered the domain name.
Respondent registered and uses the domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
(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 domain name has been 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 SWAGELOK service mark sufficient for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) by virtue of its registration of the mark with a national trademark authority, the USPTO. See, for example, Thermo Electron Corp. v. Xu, FA 713851 (Forum July 12, 2006) (finding that a UDRP complainant had established rights in its marks adequate to confer standing upon it under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) to permit it to pursue a complaint against a domain name registrant where the marks were registered with a national trademark authority).
This is true without regard to whether Complainant’s rights in its mark arise from registration of the mark in a jurisdiction (here the United States) other than that in which Respondent resides or does business (here China). See, for example, W.W. Grainger, Inc. v. Above.com Domain Privacy, FA 1334458 (Forum August 24, 2010):
[T]he Panel finds that USPTO registration is sufficient to establish these [Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)] rights even when Respondent lives or operates in a different country.
Turning to the central question posed by Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), we conclude from a review of the record that Respondent’s <fswagelok.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s SWAGELOK service mark. The domain name incorporates the mark in its entirety, with only the addition of an extraneous letter “f” and 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. See, for example, TripAdvisor, LLC , et al. v. RAKSHITA MERCANTILE PRIVATE LTD, FA 1623459 (Forum July 17, 2015):
Adding a single letter is not enough to prevent a domain name from being confusingly similar to a mark [on which it is based].
See also SCOLA v. Wick, FA 1115109 (Forum February 1, 2008), concluding that:
[T]he domain name at issue is [not only confusingly similar, but substantively] identical[,] to complainant’s … mark, as the only alteration to the mark is the addition of the generic top-level domain “.com.”
Further see Isleworth Land Co. v. Lost in Space, SA, FA 117330 (Forum September 27, 2002):
[I]t is a well-established principle that generic top-level domains are irrelevant when conducting a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis.
This is because every domain name requires a gTLD or other TLD.
Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must make out a prima facie showing that Respondent lacks rights to and legitimate interests in the contested <fswagelok.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 challenged <fswagelok.com> domain name, and that Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use the SWAGELOK mark in a domain name. Moreover, the pertinent WHOIS information identifies the registrant of the domain name only as “Cai Jiantao,” 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, without any objection from Respondent, that Respondent’s <fswagelok.com> domain name resolves to a website displaying explicit adult content, and that Respondent seeks to profit financially from the operation of the resolving website. This use, which bears no relationship to Complainant’s business, 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, Tumblr, Inc. v. Srivathsan GK, FA1582401 (Forum October 30, 2014):
Consequently, the Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name for adult-oriented images also does not provide a bona fide offering of goods or services, or make a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and 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’s use of the disputed <fswagelok.com> domain name, which we have found to be confusingly similar to Complainant’s SWAGELOK service mark, is an attempt to profit illicitly 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, Google Inc. v. Bassano, FA 232958 (Forum March 8, 2004) (finding that a UDRP respondent’s use of a domain name that was confusingly similar to the mark of another to attract Internet users to a website featuring adult-oriented content constituted bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)).
We are likewise convinced by the evidence that Respondent knew of Complainant and its rights in the SWAGELOK mark when it registered the <fswagelok.com> domain name. This further demonstrates Respondent’s bad faith in registering the domain name. See, for example, Orbitz Worldwide, LLC v. Domain Librarian, FA 1535826 (Forum February 6, 2014):
The Panel … here finds actual knowledge [and therefore bad faith registration of a contested domain name] through the name used for the domain and the use made of it.
See also Yahoo! Inc. v. Butler, FA 744444 (Forum August 17, 2006) (finding bad faith registration where a respondent was “well-aware” of a UDRP complainant’s mark at the time of its confusingly similar domain name registration).
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 <fswagelok.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED forthwith from Respondent to Complainant.
Terry F. Peppard, Panelist
Dated: February 4, 2020
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page