Twitch Interactive, Inc. v. Kenny MarveI / JTI
Claim Number: FA2007001905409
Complainant is Twitch Interactive, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by James F. Struthers of Richard Law Group, Inc., Texas, USA. Respondent is Kenny MarveI / JTI (“Respondent”), California, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <twitch-drops.com>, registered with NameCheap, Inc..
The undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on July 22, 2020; the Forum received payment on July 22, 2020.
On July 22, 2020, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <twitch-drops.com> 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 July 23, 2020, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 12, 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@twitch-drops.com. Also on July 23, 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 14, 2020, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Sandra J. Franklin 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
1. Respondent’s <twitch-drops.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s TWITCH mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <twitch-drops.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and uses the <twitch-drops.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Twitch Interactive, Inc., operates a leading international social video service for gamers. Complainant holds a registration for the TWITCH mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 4,275,948, registered Jan. 15, 2013).
Respondent registered the <twitch-drops.com> domain name on June 19, 2020, and uses it to conduct a phishing scheme.
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”).
The Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the TWITCH mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through registration with the USPTO. 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.”).
Respondent’s <twitch-drops.com> domain name incorporates the TWITCH mark, adds a hyphen and the term “drops,” and the “.com” gTLD. These changes do not distinguish the domain name from the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See PADI Americas, Inc. v. MPM Administration, FA 1783415 (Forum May 22, 2018) (finding the <padivacations.com> domain name to be confusingly similar to the complainant’s PADI mark: “the inclusion of the suggestive term “vacations” in the at-issue domain name only adds to any confusion between the domain name and Complainant’s trademark since the term suggests Complainant’s travel related services.”), see also ADP, LLC. v. Ella Magal, FA 1773958 (Forum Aug. 2, 2017) (“Respondent’s <workforce-now.com> domain name appropriates the dominant portion of Complainant’s ADP WORKFORCE NOW mark and adds a hyphen and the gTLD “.com.” These changes do not sufficiently distinguish the disputed domain name from the ADP WORKFORCE NOW mark.”). Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent’s <twitch-drops.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s TWITICH mark.
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Once Complainant makes a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), 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”).
Complainant argues that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <twitch-drops.com> domain name, as Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Respondent has no license or consent to use the TWITCH mark or to register domain names using Complainant’s mark. The WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the registrant as “Kenny Marvel / JTI.” Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and thus has no rights 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); see also 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)”).
Complainant claims that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Complainant argues that Respondent uses the disputed domain name to pass off as Complainant to further a phishing scam. The use of a disputed domain name to pass off as a complainant to advance a phishing scheme is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See DaVita Inc. v. Cynthia Rochelo, FA 1738034 (Forum July 20, 2017) (”Passing off in furtherance of a phishing scheme is not considered a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use.”). Complainant provides a screenshot of Respondent’s <twitch-drops.com> domain name that shows a warning for a “Deceptive Site.” The Panel finds that this use is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, and thus Respondent has no rights under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Complainant argues that Respondent registered and used the <twitch-drops.com> domain name in bad faith as Respondent attempts to pass itself off as Complainant to further a phishing scheme. The use of a disputed domain name to pass off as a complainant to facilitate a phishing scheme is evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. jaskima smith, FA 1750160 (Forum Oct. 26, 2017) (finding the respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith to pass off as the complainant in an attempt to gain personal information from users who mistakenly access the website). Complainant provides a screenshot of Respondent’s <twitch-drops.com> domain name that shows “”Warning: Suspected Phishing Site Ahead!” The Panel finds that this demonstrates bad faith bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
Complainant argues that Respondent had knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the TWITCH mark at the time of registering the <twitch-drops.com> domain name. 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 agrees and finds bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See iFinex Inc. v. xu shuaiwei, FA 1760249 (Forum Jan. 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”).
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <twitch-drops.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist
Dated: August 16, 2020
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page