DECISION
Parchment LLC v. QUANzhongjun / QUAN zhongjun
Claim Number: FA2008001908688
Complainant is Parchment LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Dwayne K. Goetzel, Texas, USA. Respondent is QUANzhongjun / QUAN zhongjun (“Respondent”), China.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <parcchment.com> and <parchmentt.com> (the “disputed domain names”), registered with Jiangsu Bangning Science & technology Co. Ltd. (the “Registrar”).
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.
Lynda M. Braun as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on August 17, 2020; the Forum received payment on August 17, 2020.
On August 19, 2020, the Registrar confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <parcchment.com> and <parchmentt.com> disputed domain names are registered with Jiangsu Bangning Science & technology Co. Ltd. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. The Registrar has verified that Respondent is bound by the Jiangsu Bangning Science & technology Co. 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 August 25, 2020, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Chinese language Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 14, 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@parcchment.com, postmaster@parchmentt.com. Also on August 25, 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 September 21, 2020, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Lynda M. Braun 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 disputed domain names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant has rights in the PARCHMENT mark through its registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g. Reg. No. 4,198,220, registered Aug. 28, 2012) for educational services (the “PARCHMENT Mark”). Respondent’s <parcchment.com> and <parchmentt.com> disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the PARCHMENT Mark as they are misspellings or typosquatting versions of, the PARCHMENT Mark, adding an extra letter "c" or "t' to the trademark.
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <parcchment.com> and <parchmentt.com> disputed domain names. Respondent is not associated with Complainant and is not authorized to use the PARCHMENT Mark and Respondent is not known by the disputed domain names or the trademark. Respondent does not use the disputed domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Respondent does not make any active use of the disputed domain names.
Respondent registered and uses the <parcchment.com> and <parchmentt.com> disputed domain names in bad faith. Respondent uses the disputed domain names in connection with a website that contains links to competing third-party services, Respondent is engaged in typosquatting, and which is evidence of bad faith, and Respondent knew or should have known of Complainant's rights in the PARCHMENT Mark when registering the disputed domain names.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant has registered trademark rights in the PARCHMENT Mark. The disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s PARCHMENT Mark. Further, Complainant has established that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names and that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain names 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:
(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”).
Preliminary Issue: Language of Proceeding
Prior to discussing the three elements of the Policy, the Panel must decide the language of the proceedings. The Registration Agreement is written in Chinese, thereby making the language of the proceedings Chinese in accordance with UDRP Rule 11(a). However, pursuant to UDRP Rule 11(a), the Panel has the authority to determine a different language for the proceedings, giving regard to the circumstances of the case. See FilmNet Inc. v Onetz, FA 96196 (Forum Feb. 12, 2001 (finding it appropriate to conduct the proceeding in English under Rule 11, despite Korean being designated as the required language in the registration agreement because the respondent submitted a response in English after receiving the complaint in Korean and English).
The Panel agrees with Complainant that the proceeding should be conducted in English because Respondent is conversant and proficient in English, the disputed domain names are written in English letters, not Chinese characters, and the disputed domain names display links in English to other websites. Moreover, the Panel concludes that the language requirement has been satisfied through the Commencement Notification that was sent to Respondent in Chinese and English, and, since Respondent did not submit a Response, nor did Respondent submit a request to receive the Complaint and annexes in Chinese, the Panel has decided that the remainder of the proceedings may be conducted in English.
Identical and/or Confusingly Similar
The Panel concludes that the <parcchment.com> and <parchmentt.com> disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the PARCHMENT Mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
First, the Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the PARCHMENT Mark through its registration of the mark with the USPTO (e.g. Reg. No. 4,198,220, registered Aug. 28, 2012) for educational services. Registration of a mark with the USPTO sufficiently confers a complainant’s rights in a mark for the purposes of 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.”).
Further, the Panel finds that Respondent’s <parcchment.com> and <parchmentt.com> disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the PARCHMENT Mark as they are misspellings of Complainant’s PARCHMENT Mark, adding an extra letter "c" or "t' to the trademark and are followed by the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com”. However, the addition of a single letter and a gTLD do not distinguish a domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶4(a)(i). Bank of America Corporation v. Above.com Domain Privacy, FA 1629452 (Forum Aug. 18, 2015) (finding that the <blankofamerica.com> domain name contains the entire BANK OF AMERICA mark and merely adds the gTLD ‘.com’ and the letter ‘l’ to create a common misspelling of the word ‘bank’).
Accordingly, the Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been established by Complainant.
The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. Under the Policy, Complainant is required to make out a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. Once such a prima facie case is made, Respondent carries the burden of demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. See 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”).
In this case, Respondent did not carry its burden to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names as it did not respond to the Complaint, but given the facts of this case, the Panel finds that Respondent would have been hard-pressed to furnish availing arguments had it chosen to respond:
Specifically, Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names, Complainant has not authorized, licensed, or otherwise permitted Respondent to use the PARCHMENT Mark and Respondent has no relationship, affiliation, connection, endorsement or association with Complainant.
Furthermore, Respondent fails to use the disputed domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, or in connection with a legitimate noncommercial or fair use because the disputed domain names resolve to a webpage containing sponsored links.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been established by Complainant.
The Panel concludes that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith.
First, Respondent attracts Internet users for commercial gain by displaying third party sponsored links of competing services. The use of domain names to display links to competing third party services demonstrates bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See American Council on Education and GED Testing Service LLC v. Anthony Williams, FA1760954 (Forum January 8, 2018) (“Respondent’s hosting of links to Complainant’s competitors demonstrates bad faith registration and use of the <geddiploma.org> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)”); see also T-Mobile USA, Inc. v. utahhealth, FA 697821 (Forum June 7, 2006) (holding that the registration and use of a domain name confusingly similar to a complainant’s mark to direct Internet traffic to a commercial “links page” in order to profit from click-through fees or other revenue sources constitutes bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)).
Second, Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith given that Respondent has engaged in typosquatting when it registered the disputed domain names. Respondent registered the disputed domain names by misspelling the PARCHMENT Mark, which it did by adding the letter “c” and “t” to the trademark. Typosquatting of a registered trademark, as here, indicates bad faith registration and use per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Vanguard Trademark Holdings USA LLC v. Shuai Wei Xu / Xu Shuai Wei, FA 1784238 (Forum June 1, 2018) (finding the respondent engaged in typosquatting—and thus registered and used the at-issue domain names in bad faith—where the names consisted of the complainant’s mark with small typographical errors introduced therein).
Finally, the use of disputed domain names to intentionally attempt to attract Internet users to a respondent’s website or online location by creating a likelihood of confusion or a false association with a complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the registrant’s website or online location demonstrates registration and use in bad faith. See AOL LLC v. iTech Ent, LLC, FA 726227 (Forum July 21, 2006).
Accordingly, the Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been established by 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 <parcchment.com> and <parchmentt.com> disputed domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Lynda M. Braun, Panelist
Dated: September 25, 2020
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page