Dell Inc. v. Sandeep Kumar
Claim Number: FA2007001904632
Complainant is Dell Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Caitlin Costello, United States. Respondent is Sandeep Kumar (“Respondent”), India.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <dell-customer-service.net>, registered with BigRock Solutions Ltd.
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.
Hon. Karl v. Fink (Ret.) as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on July 17, 2020; the Forum received payment on July 17, 2020.
On July 17, 2020, BigRock Solutions Ltd confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <dell-customer-service.net> domain name is registered with BigRock Solutions Ltd and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. BigRock Solutions Ltd has verified that Respondent is bound by the BigRock Solutions Ltd 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 July 20, 2020, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 10, 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@dell-customer-service.net. Also on July 20, 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 August 12, 2020, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Hon. Karl V. Fink (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 world leader in computers, computer accessories, and other computer-related products and services. Complainant has rights in the DELL mark through its registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g. Reg. No. 1,860,272, registered Oct. 25, 1994). Respondent’s <dell-customer-service.net> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s DELL mark. Respondent incorporates the mark in its entirety and adds the generic phrase “customer service” and “.net” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).
Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the <dell-customer-service.net> domain name as respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name nor did Complainant authorize Respondent to use the DELL mark in any way. Additionally, Respondent fails to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent’s disputed domain name resolves to an inactive webpage. Respondent also held itself out as Complainant by offering services related to Complainant’s business to obtain users’ personal information.
Respondent registered and used the <dell-customer-service.net> domain name in bad faith as Respondent attempts to create consumer confusion by offering services similar to Complainant. Respondent also attempts to gather personal information. Lastly, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the DELL mark due to the similarity of services offered and Respondent’s past use of the DELL mark on a website.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
For the reasons set forth below, based upon Complainant’s uncontested allegations and evidence, the Panel finds that Complainant is entitled to the requested relief of transfer of the<dell-customer-service.net> domain name.
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 to have rights in the DELL mark due to its registration with the USPTO. Registration of a mark with the USPTO is sufficient to establish rights in a mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Liberty Global Logistics, LLC v. damilola emmanuel / tovary services limited, FA 1738536 (Forum Aug. 4, 2017) (“Registration of a mark with the USPTO sufficiently establishes the required rights in the mark for purposes of the Policy.”). Complainant has provided the Panel with a copy of its USPTO registration for the DELL mark (e.g. Reg. No. 1,860,272, registered Oct. 25, 1994). The Panel finds that Complainant has shown rights in the mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant argues that Respondent’s <dell-customer-service.net> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s DELL mark. Registration of a domain name that contains a mark in its entirety and adds a generic phrase or word along with a gTLD does not distinguish the domain name from the mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Microsoft Corporation v. Thong Tran Thanh, FA 1653187 (Forum Jan. 21, 2016) (determining that confusing similarity exists where [a disputed domain name] contains Complainant’s entire mark and differs only by the addition of a generic or descriptive phrase and top-level domain, the differences between the domain name and its contained trademark are insufficient to differentiate one from the other for the purposes of the Policy. Respondent also adds hyphens to the disputed domain name. Such use also fails to distinguish a domain name from a mark. See Eastman Chem. Co. v. Patel, FA 524752 (Forum Sept. 7, 2005) (“Therefore, the Panel concludes that the addition of a term descriptive of Complainant’s business, the addition of a hyphen, and the addition of the gTLD ‘.com’ are insufficient to distinguish Respondent’s domain name from Complainant’s mark.”). Complainant argues that Respondent incorporates the mark in its entirety and adds the generic phrase “customer service” and “.net” gTLD. The Panel finds that Respondent’s domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant has proved this element.
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 finds that Complainant has made a prima facie case.
Complainant argues Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interest in the <dell-customer-service.net> domain name as Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name nor has Respondent been given license or consent to use the DELL mark or register domain names using Complainant’s mark. Where a response is lacking, WHOIS information may be used to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. LY Ta, FA 1789106 (Forum June 21, 2018) (concluding a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name where the complainant asserted it did not authorize the respondent to use the mark, and the relevant WHOIS information indicated the respondent is not commonly known by the domain name). Additionally, lack of authorization to use a complainant’s mark may indicate that the respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. See Emerson Electric Co. v. golden humble / golden globals, FA 1787128 (Forum June 11, 2018) (“lack of evidence in the record to indicate a respondent is authorized to use [the] complainant’s mark may support a finding that [the] respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)”). The WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the registrant as “Sandeep Kumar” and there is no evidence to suggest that Respondent was authorized to use the DELL mark or was commonly known by the disputed domain name. The Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
Complainant argues that Respondent fails to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent’s disputed domain name resolves to an inactive webpage. Failure to make an active use of a disputed domain is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Thermo Electron Corp. v. Xu, FA 713851 (Forum July 12, 2006) (finding that the respondent’s non-use of the disputed domain names demonstrates that the respondent is not using the disputed domain names for a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)). Complainant provides the Panel with a screenshot of Respondent’s <dell-customer-service.net> domain name that shows that the site can’t be reached. The Panel finds that this is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).
Complainant argues that Respondent also holds itself out as Complainant by offering services related to Complainant’s business to obtain users’ personal information. Use of a disputed domain name to offer services and products related to a Complainant’s business in an attempt to gather personal information is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See General Motors LLC v. MIKE LEE, FA 1659965 (Forum Mar. 10, 2016) (“use of a domain to sell products and/or services that compete directly with a complainant’s business does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”); see also Google Inc. v. Pritam Singh / Pandaje Technical Services Pvt Ltd., FA 1660771 (Forum Mar. 17, 2016) (agreeing that respondent has not shown any bona fide offering of goods or services or any legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii) as the respondent used the complainant’s mark and logo on a resolving website containing offers for technical support and password recovery services, and soliciting Internet users’ personal information). Complainant has provided a screenshot of Respondent’s <dell-customer-service.net> domain name that offers customer service and also provides links where Respondent attempts to gather personal information. The Panel finds that Respondent has failed to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii) and Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
Complainant has proved this element.
Complainant argues that Respondent registered and used the <dell-customer-service.net> domain name in bad faith as Respondent attempts to create consumer confusion by offering services similar to Complainant. Use of a disputed domain name to offer similar services in hopes of causing consumer confusion is evidence of bad faith per Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv). See Ontel Products Corporation v. waweru njoroge, FA 1762229 (Forum Dec. 22, 2017) (finding that the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv) through the respondent’s registration and use of the infringing domain name to reference the complainant’s products and offer competitive and/or counterfeit products). Complainant has provided a screenshot of Respondent’s <dell-customer-service.net> domain name that offers customer service to Complainant’s products. This is evidence that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith per Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv).
Complainant argues that Respondent had knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the DELL mark at the time of registering the <dell-customer-service.net> domain name. Actual knowledge can adequately demonstrate bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See iFinex Inc. v. xu shuaiwei, FA 1760249 (Forum January 1, 2018) (“Respondent’s prior knowledge is evident from the notoriety of Complainant’s BITFINEX trademark as well as from Respondent’s use of its trademark laden domain name to direct internet traffic to a website which is a direct competitor of Complainant”). To support this assertion, Complainant points to its trademark registrations along with the fact that Respondent impersonates Complainant to further a fraudulent scam. The Panel finds that Respondent did have actual knowledge of Complainant’s right in its mark, which would support a finding of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Complainant argues that Respondent engages in a phishing scheme to gather Internet user’s personal information. Such use may evince bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Morgan Stanley v. Bruce Pu, FA 1764120 (Forum Feb. 2, 2018) (“[T]he screenshot of the resolving webpage allows users to input their name and email address, which Complainant claims Respondent uses that to fraudulently phish for information. the Panel agrees that Respondent phishes for information and finds that Respondent does so in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”). Complainant provides a screenshot of the disputed domain name’s resolving webpage which appears to prompt users to input personal information. The Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Complainant has proved this element.
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 <dell-customer-service.net> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
______________________________________________________________
Hon. Karl V. Fink (Ret.) Panelist
August 18, 2020
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page