Design Ideas, Ltd. v. chen jun cai
Claim Number: FA2104001940100
Complainant is Design Ideas, Ltd. ("Complainant"), represented by Garfield Goodrum of GARFIELD GOODRUM, PLLC, New Hampshire, USA. Respondent is chen jun cai ("Respondent"), China.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <bubblope.net>, registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com.
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 April 2, 2021; the Forum received payment on April 2, 2021.
On April 2, 2021, PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com confirmed by email to the Forum that the <bubblope.net> domain name is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com 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 April 6, 2021, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 26, 2021 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@bubblope.net. Also on April 6, 2021, 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 April 29, 2021, 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 a wholesale provider of home and office accessories sold through online retail outlets and at box stores. Complainant's products include reusable protective folders and portfolios. Complainant uses the BUBBLOPE trademark in connection with these products. Complainant states that BUBBLOPE is a coined term with no meaning other than as a trademark for its products, and in support thereof provides a listing of Google search results for the term, all of which point to Complainant's products. Complainant owns a United States trademark registration issued in 1993 for the BUBBLOPE mark in standard character form.
Respondent registered the disputed domain name <bubblope.net> in September 2020. Since then it has been used to redirect users to an online gambling site and a website that attempts to download software, and at times has not resolved at all. Complainant states that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and has not been authorized or licensed to use Complainant's mark in any manner.
Complainant contends on the above grounds that the disputed domain name <bubblope.net> is identical or confusingly similar to its BUBBLOPE 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 identical 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 <bubblope.net> corresponds to Complainant's registered BUBBLOPE trademark, with the ".net" top-level domain appended thereto. The addition of a top-level domain is normally irrelevant for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. See, e.g., Rentrak Corp. v. CV Lawn, D2000-1098 (WIPO Nov. 8, 2000) (finding <rentrak.net> identical to RENTRAK). The Panel considers the disputed domain name to be identical to Complainant's registered mark.
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 its sole apparent use has been to redirect users to what the Panel infers to be unrelated commercial websites. Such use does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests under the Policy. See, e.g., State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Carolina Rodrigues / Fundacion Comercio Electronico, FA 1890664 (Forum Apr. 28, 2020) (finding lack of rights or interests arising from display of unrelated advertisements or redirection to unrelated third-party websites); WordPress Foundation v. Above.com Domain Privacy, FA 1641647 (Forum Nov. 9, 2015) (finding lack of rights or interests arising from redirection to unrelated third-party websites for respondent's presumed commercial gain).
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)(iv) of the Policy, 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."
Respondent registered a domain name corresponding to Complainant's registered mark. The domain name has been used to redirect users to an online gambling site and what Complainant describes as a site that directs users to download software, and currently does not appear to resolve at all. Respondent has failed to come forward to explain why the domain name was selected or state any intentions for its use. Under the circumstances, the Panel considers it reasonable to infer that Respondent registered and is using the domain name in an effort to create and profit from confusion with Complainant's mark. See, e.g., State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Carolina Rodrigues / Fundacion Comercio Electronico, supra (finding bad faith where domain name was used to display unrelated advertisements or redirect users to unrelated third-party websites); WordPress Foundation v. Above.com Domain Privacy, supra (finding bad faith where domain name was used to redirect users to unrelated third-party websites, some of which attempted to install malware); Rentrak Corp. v. CV Lawn, supra (finding bad faith based upon inference that domain name corresponding to coined mark was selected to trade upon goodwill of mark). The Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
Having considered the three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <bubblope.net> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
David E. Sorkin, Panelist
Dated: May 4, 2021
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page