Caterpillar Inc. v. Huang Xiaoling
Claim Number: FA2010001916319
Complainant is Caterpillar Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by David M. Kelly of Kelly IP, LLP, District of Columbia, United States. Respondent is Huang Xiaoling ("Respondent"), China.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <dealercat.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.
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.
David E. Sorkin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on October 8, 2020; the Forum received payment on October 8, 2020.
On October 9, 2020, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by email to the Forum that the <dealercat.com> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, LLC 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 12, 2020, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of November 2, 2020 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via email to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@dealercat.com. Also on October 12, 2020, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the email 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 November 5, 2020, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed David E. Sorkin 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 the world's largest manufacturer of construction and mining equipment, diesel and natural gas engines, industrial gas turbines, and diesel-electric locomotives. Complainant has used the CATERPILLAR and CAT marks in connection with its goods and services since at least as early as 1904 and 1948 respectively, and owns trademark registrations for CAT and variations thereof in more than 150 countries. Complainant claims that both marks have become famous as a result of extensive use and advertising and worldwide public recognition. Complainant uses various domain names incorporating CATERPILLAR and CAT; among these is the third-level domain name <dealer.cat.com>, which it has used since at least as early as 2012 for its online portal for authorized dealers.
The disputed domain name <dealercat.com> was registered in March 2001; Complainant states that Respondent registered or acquired it in July 2016, based upon historical Whois domain registration records. Complainant characterizes the disputed domain name as a typosquatted version of its <dealer.cat.com> domain name. The disputed domain name is being used for a website consisting of pay-per-click links that reference Complainant and its marks and link to various commercial websites, some of which compete directly with Complainant. It is also being used to redirect users to a third-party website that attempts to install software on the user's computer. Complainant states that Respondent has also registered domain names targeting other marks, including <wwwenterprise.com>, <cinemark.co>, and <roku.co>, presumably without being authorized to do so by the owners of the corresponding marks. Complainant states that it has not authorized Respondent to use its mark and that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name.
Complainant contends on the above grounds that the disputed domain name <dealercat.com> is confusingly similar to its CAT mark; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used 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 Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, § 4.3 (3d ed. 2017), available at http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (dismissing complaint where complainant failed to "produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations").
The disputed domain name <dealercat.com> incorporates Complainant's registered CAT trademark, adding the generic term "dealer" and the ".com" top-level domain. These alterations do not substantially diminish the similarity between the domain name and Complainant's mark. See, e.g., Enterprise Holdings, Inc. v. Pinnacle Investment Group, LLC / Erik Day, FA 1684948 (Forum Aug. 25, 2016) (finding <dealerenterprise.com> confusingly similar to ENTERPRISE); Caterpillar Inc. v. Int Bus a/k/a Intermediate in Business Inc, FA 1140855 (Forum Mar. 12, 2008) (finding <caterpillardealer.info> confusingly similar to CATERPILLAR); Caterpillar Inc. v. H. van Zuylen Materieel, DNL2011-0073 (WIPO Jan. 30, 2012) (finding <catdealer.nl> confusingly similar to CAT under Dispute Resolution Regulations for .nl Domain Names). The Panel considers the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights.
Under the Policy, the Complainant must first make a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and then the burden shifts to the Respondent to come forward with concrete evidence of such rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Productions, Inc. v. Entertainment Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006).
The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's registered mark without authorization, and it is being used to display pay-per-click advertisements, including links to competitors of Complainant, and apparently to disseminate malware. Such use does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests under the Policy. See, e.g., Charter Communications Holding Co., LLC v. Nanci Nette, FA 1820262 (Forum Feb. 7, 2019) (finding lack of rights or interests in similar circumstances).
Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name, and Respondent has failed to come forward with any evidence of such rights or interests. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has sustained its burden of proving that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
Finally, Complainant must show that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Under paragraph 4(b)(iii) of the Policy, bad faith may be shown by evidence that Respondent registered the disputed domain name "primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor." Under paragraph 4(b)(iv), bad faith may be shown by evidence that "by using the domain name, [Respondent] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [Respondent's] web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [Respondent's] web site or location or of a product or service on [Respondent's] web site or location."
The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's famous mark without authorization, and presumably was selected in part because of its similarity to a domain name used by Complainant. The domain name is being used to display pay-per-click advertisements, including links to competitors of Complainant, and apparently to disseminate malware. Such conduct is indicative of bad faith registration and use under the Policy. See, e.g., Charter Communications Holding Co., LLC v. Nanci Nette, supra (finding bad faith in similar circumstances). The Panel so finds.
Having considered the three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <dealercat.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
David E. Sorkin, Panelist
Dated: November 5, 2020
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page