West Coast University, Inc. v. Prof Bashiru Aremu / Africa I.T Consultancy
Claim Number: FA2104001942025
Complainant is West Coast University, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Michelle Hon Donovan of Duane Morris, LLP, California, USA. Respondent is Prof Bashiru Aremu / Africa I.T Consultancy (“Respondent”), Nigeria.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <westcoastuniversityintl.education>, 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.
Steven M. Levy, Esq. as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on April 19, 2021; the Forum received payment on April 19, 2021.
On April 20, 2021, PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <westcoastuniversityintl.education> 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 26, 2021, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of May 17, 2021 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@westcoastuniversityintl.education. Also on April 26, 2021, 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 May 18, 2021, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Steven M. Levy, Esq. 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, West Coast University, Inc., operates an educational institution providing courses and training at the undergraduate and professional level. Complainant has rights in the trademark WEST COAST UNIVERSITY through its use in commerce for over one hundred years and its registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) in 2007. Respondent’s <westcoastuniversityintl.education> domain name, registered on March 17, 2015, is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s WEST COAST UNIVERSITY mark, only differing by the addition of the generic terms “intl” and the “.education” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).
Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <westcoastuniversityintl.education> domain name as it is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and is neither an authorized user or licensee of the WEST COAST UNIVERSITY mark. Additionally, Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services, nor does it make a legitimate noncommercial or fair use thereof. Instead, Respondent uses the disputed domain name to pass itself off as Complainant in furtherance of a scheme wherein Respondent offers fake online degrees and may engage in phishing for the personal or financial information of degree program applicants.
Respondent registered and uses the <westcoastuniversityintl.education> domain name in bad faith. Respondent uses the disputed domain name to pass itself off as Complainant, offer fake academic degrees, and perhaps operate a phishing scheme, all for commercial gain. Additionally, Respondent appears to be the same entity that operated the <westcoastuniversity.us> domain name which was ordered to be transferred to Complainant in a previous usDRP decision. Finally, Respondent’s attempts to hide its identity by providing false contact information is further evidence of bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
(1) the domain name registered by Respondent is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights;
(2) Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(3) the disputed domain name was registered and is being used by Respondent 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 and evidence 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 and supported 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 asserts rights in the WEST COAST UNIVERSITY mark through its registration with the USPTO. Registration of a mark with a trademark agency, such as the USPTO, is generally sufficient to demonstrate rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Haas Automation, Inc. v. Jim Fraser, FA 1627211 (Forum Aug. 4, 2015) (finding that Complainant’s USPTO registrations for the HAAS mark sufficiently demonstrate its rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)). Complainant provides copies of four of its USPTO registration certificates, however, three of these reflect the owner as an entity called Action Educational Services, Inc., a party not named in these proceedings. While no evidence of a name change or assignment to the present Complainant is provided, one of these certificates does identify the owner as Action Educational Services, Inc., dba West Coast University and prior UDRP decisions cited by Complainant that involve the WEST COAST UNIVERSITY mark name Action Educational Services, Inc. as the Complainant. Finally, the Panel has reviewed the USPTO records and found that the claimed trademark registrations do, in fact, reflect a change of name from Action Educational Services, Inc. to West Coast University, Inc. Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the WEST COAST UNIVERSITY mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Next, Complainant argues that Respondent’s <westcoastuniversityintl.education> domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s WEST COAST UNIVERSITY mark, only differing by the addition of the term “intl” to indicate the term “international” and the “.education” gTLD. Adding generic letters or terms along with a gTLD may not sufficiently distinguish a domain name from a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Dell Inc. v. pushpender chauhan, FA 1784548 (Forum June 11, 2018) (“Respondent merely adds the term ‘supports’ and a ‘.org’ gTLD to the DELL mark. Thus, the Panel finds Respondent’s disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s DELL mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”); see also Bittrex, Inc. v. Sergey Valerievich Kireev / Kireev, FA 1784651 (Forum June 5, 2018) (holding that the domain name consists of the BITTREX mark and adds “the letters ‘btc’ and the gTLD .com which do not distinguish the Domain Name from Complainant’s mark.”). In light of the above-mentioned non-distinguishing differences, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
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). Should it succeed in this effort, the burden then shifts to Respondent to show that 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 <westcoastuniversityintl.education> domain name as Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and is neither an authorized user or licensee of the WEST COAST UNIVERSITY mark. In considering this issue, relevant WHOIS information may demonstrate that a Respondent is not commonly known by a domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Chevron Intellectual Property LLC v. Fred Wallace, FA1506001626022 (Forum July 27, 2015) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <chevron-europe.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), as the WHOIS information named “Fred Wallace” as registrant of the disputed domain name). Here, the WHOIS information of record identifies “Prof Bashiru Aremu / Africa I.T Consultancy” as the Registrant of the disputed domain name. Respondent has not filed a Response or made any other submission in this case and so the Panel finds no evidence upon which to conclude that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
Additionally, Complainant argues that Respondent does not use the <westcoastuniversityintl.education> domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services, nor does it make a legitimate noncommercial or fair use thereof. Respondent instead uses the disputed domain name to pass itself off as Complainant to operate a non-existent educational institution that offers fake academic degrees or perhaps a phishing scheme to gather personal and financial information from applicants to Respondent’s claimed school. Previous Panels have found that offering fake educational diplomas does not provide any rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name. See American University v. Richard Cook, FA 208629 (Forum Dec. 22, 2003) (“Respondent’s use of the <allamericanuniversity.us> domain name to sell diplomas is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iv).”) Further, passing oneself off as a complainant to conduct a phishing scheme also does not qualify as 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.”). Here, Complainant offers extensive evidence to show the nature of Respondent’s activities. It begins with screenshots of Respondent’s website that resolves from the disputed domain name showing that it purports to be an academic institution based in Los Angeles, California, USA. Respondent’s website prominently displays the WEST COAST UNIVERSITY mark, there are certain misspellings and typographical errors on the page, and the site mentions physical addresses in Delaware and California for Respondent’s “Administration Office” and “USA Campus and Office of Prevost” both of which are, as shows by map and real estate agency website screenshots, commercial or residential properties that appear to have no relationship with any type of educational institution. Further, Complainant provides a copy of a demand letter that was sent to Respondent’s listed Delaware address which was returned by the postal service as undeliverable and, as noted in a submitted Declaration, repeated calls to the telephone number shown on Respondent’s website consistently resulted in a generic voice message and no return call. Complainant also notes that Respondent’s website claims that its educational institution is accredited by certain government and industry authorities and it provides screenshots from such authorities indicating that no such accreditation exists and that one of the industry authorities identified by Respondent has been flagged as a fake college accreditation agency. Complainant resubmits screenshot evidence that Respondent is attempting to pass off in furtherance of a phishing scheme. Finally, Complainant submits a 2009 news article from a media outlet in Singapore titled “Worthless Degrees” that focusses on Respondent and its practice as an unaccredited institution and noting that “[a]t least two American states of outlawed degrees from WCU, describing it as a ‘degree supplier’. That offers ‘fraudulent or substandard degrees.’” The Panel finds that Complainant has presented significantly more than a prima facie case. Respondent has not participated in these proceedings and so it has not rebutted Complainant’s case. Thus, by a preponderance of the available evidence, the Panel finds no grounds upon which to conclude that Respondent possesses any rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).
The Complaint does not directly address the question of whether Respondent had knowledge of Complainant and its WEST COAST UNIVERSITY mark at the time it registered the disputed domain name. However, it does cite to a prior usDRP dispute involving the domain name <westcoastuniversity.us> which it claims was brought against the same Respondent as in the current proceedings. Acton Educational Services, Inc. d/b/a West Coast University v. West Coast University International, FA 1191541 (Forum July 2, 2008). Further, the content of Respondent’s website strongly indicates that Respondent knew of Complainant at the time it registered the <westcoastuniversityintl.education> domain name.
Complainant does argue that Respondent registered and uses the <westcoastuniversityintl.education> domain name in bad faith because Respondent attempts to pass itself off as Complainant to offer fake educational degrees and perhaps to operate a phishing scheme. Such use of a disputed domain name displays bad faith attraction for commercial gain under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See The George Washington University v. Mohammed Irsad / Riyas Sulaima Lebbe, D2021-0697 (WIPO May 3, 2021) (“The Respondent has published a website at the disputed [gwuop.org] domain name claiming accreditations which it has not been prepared to evidence, despite these being challenged by the Complainant, and has prominently reproduced a seal which corresponds closely with the Complainant’s University seal.”) See also Bittrex, Inc. v. Wuxi Yilian LLC, FA 1760517 (Forum Dec. 27, 2017) (finding bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where “Respondent registered and uses the <lbittrex.com> domain name in bad faith by directing Internet users to a website that mimics Complainant’s own website in order to confuse users into believing that Respondent is Complainant, or is otherwise affiliated or associated with Complainant.”). As previously noted, Complainant provides extensive screenshots and other evidence to support its claim that the <westcoastuniversityintl.education> website falsely claims to be an accredited academic institution that actually offers fake academic degrees and that it does this for commercial gain based on a likelihood of confusion with the name of Complainant’s legitimate and accredited institution. Respondent has not participated in this case and so it does not dispute this claim or provide any other explanation for its actions. Thus, the Panel finds substantial evidence that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name to pass itself off as Complainant in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
Complainant further claims that Respondent is the same entity that registered the <westcoastuniversity.us> domain name and that it is engaged in a pattern of bad faith conduct. Under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii), previous adverse decisions may demonstrate a pattern of bad faith from Respondent. See Fandango, LLC v. 21562719 Ont Ltd, FA 1464081 (Forum Nov. 2, 2012) (“Respondent’s past conduct and UDRP history establishes a pattern of registered domain names in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii).”). Here, Complainant contends that Respondent is the same entity who operated the aforementioned domain as both domains resolve to websites displaying identical stylized seals stating “WCU IN GOD WE TRUST,” listing the same fake addresses for the non-existent Los Angeles campus, and misspelling the same words. The <westcoastuniversity.us> domain name was recovered in a prior action by Complainant, Acton Educational Services, Inc. d/b/a West Coast University v. West Coast University International, FA1191541 (Forum July 2, 2008). The Panel finds sufficient grounds to agree that Respondent is most likely the same entity that operated the <westcoastuniversity.us> domain (similarities in websites and the 2009 news account of Respondent’s malfeasance). As such, it finds further support for the conclusion that Respondent has displayed a pattern of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii) by depriving the Complainant the ability to reflect its mark in certain domain names in the “.us” and now “.education” TLDs.
Finally, Complainant argues that Respondent’s attempts to conceal its identity by providing false contact information further display bad faith. Failure to provide accurate contact information may demonstrate bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See CNU ONLINE Holdings, LLC v. Domain Admin / Whois Privacy Corp., FA 1614972 (Forum May 29, 2015) (“As the Panel sees that Respondent has provided false or misleading WHOIS information, the Panel finds bad faith in Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”). Here, Complainant provides evidence that it attempted to contact Respondent at the address listed on its website and received the letter back undelivered, suggesting that Respondent is not truly located there. Additionally, Complainant provides evidence that the address listed for the Office of the Provost for Respondent is actually a residential duplex. The Panel finds this evidence compelling and agrees that Respondent provided false or misleading information thus further proving that it acted in bad faith under 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 <westcoastuniversityintl.education> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Steven M. Levy, Esq., Panelist
Dated: May 20, 2021
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page