Rockwell Automation v. hu nan yu jian dian qi ke ji you xian gong si
Claim Number: FA2108001960343
Complainant is Rockwell Automation (“Complainant”), represented by CSC Digital Brand Services Group AB, Sweden. Respondent is hu nan yu jian dian qi ke ji you xian gong si (“Respondent”), China.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <abrockwell.com>, registered with Alibaba Cloud Computing (Beijing) Co., Ltd.
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 August 19, 2021; the Forum received payment on August 19, 2021. The Complaint was received in English.
On August 23, 2021, Alibaba Cloud Computing (Beijing) Co., Ltd. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <abrockwell.com> domain name is registered with Alibaba Cloud Computing (Beijing) Co., Ltd. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Alibaba Cloud Computing (Beijing) Co., Ltd. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Alibaba Cloud Computing (Beijing) 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 27, 2021, the Forum served the English language Complaint and all Annexes, including a Chinese and English language Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 16, 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@abrockwell.com. Also on August 27, 2021, the Chinese and English language 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, 2021, 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.
PRELIMINARY ISSUE: LANGUAGE OF PROCEEDING
Complainant alleges that because Respondent is conversant in English, the proceeding should be conducted in English. The Panel has the discretion under UDRP Rule 11(a) to determine the appropriate language of the proceedings taking into consideration the particular circumstances of the administrative proceeding. 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). Complainant contends that Respondent is proficient in English since the A-B and ROCKWELL marks have no meaning in Chinese and the resolving website for the disputed domain name features English terms such as “products,” “more,” and “ControlLogix.” The Panel agrees and determines that the proceeding will be conducted in English.
A. Complainant
1. Respondent’s <abrockwell.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s A-B and ROCKWELL marks.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <abrockwell.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and uses the <abrockwell.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent did not file a Response.
Complainant, Rockwell Automation, Inc., is a global provider of industrial automation. Complainant holds a registration for the A-B mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 693,780, registered March 1, 1960) and the ROCKWELL mark with China’s National Intellectual Property Administration (“CNIPA”) (Reg. No. 777,277, registered Feb. 7, 1995).
Respondent registered the <abrockwell.com> domain name on August 20, 2019, and uses it to offer unauthorized goods for sale.
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 A-B and ROCKWELL marks based on registration of the A-B mark with the USPTO and the ROCKWELL mark with CNIPA. See Recreational Equipment, Inc. v. Liu Chan Yuan, FA 2107001954773 (Forum Aug. 9, 2021) (“Registration of a mark with the USPTO is sufficient to demonstrate rights in the mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)”); see also RevZilla Motorsports, LLC v. Elad Avrahami / Secnox, FA 1873573 (Forum Jan. 10, 2020) (Finding registration of a mark with the USPTO and CNIPA “sufficiently confers a complainant’s rights in a mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”)
Respondent’s <abrockwell.com> domain name combines the A-B and ROCKWELL marks, removes the hyphen, and adds the “.com” gTLD. Combining marks and removing punctuation to create a disputed domain name, along with the addition of a gTLD, is insufficient to distinguish a disputed domain name from the marks under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Textron Innovations Inc. v. Sheng Liang / Sarawina, FA 1622906 (Forum July 20, 2015) (finding confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) where Respondent’s <greenleetextron.com> domain name merely combined Complainant’s TEXTRON and GREENLEE marks and added the “.com” generic top-level domain suffix.); see also Chernow Commc’ns, Inc. v. Kimball, D2000-0119 (WIPO May 18, 2000) (holding “that the use or absence of punctuation marks, such as hyphens, does not alter the fact that a name is identical to a mark"). Thus, the Panel finds that Respondent’s <abrockwell.com> domain name is confusingly similar Complainant’s A-B and ROCKWELL marks.
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 does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <abrockwell.com> domain name because Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use the A-B and ROCKWELL marks. The WHOIS information for the disputed domain name identifies “hu nan yu jian dian qi ke ji you xian gong si” as the registrant. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name, and thus has no rights under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Guardair Corporation v. Pablo Palermo, FA1407001571060 (Forum Aug. 28, 2014) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <guardair.com> domain name according to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), as the WHOIS information lists “Pablo Palermo” as registrant of the disputed domain name); see also Radio Flyer Inc. v. er nong wu, FA 2011001919893 (Forum Dec. 16, 2020) (“Here, the WHOIS information lists “er nong wu” as the registrant and no information suggests Complainant has authorized Respondent to use the RADIO FLYER mark in any way. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).”).
Complainant also argues that Respondent does not use the disputed domain for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use as Respondent uses the domain to pass off as associated with Complainant and to offer unauthorized or counterfeit goods for sale. Using a disputed domain name to imply an affiliation with a complainant and to sell competing, unauthorized or counterfeit versions of a complainant’s products does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Dell Inc. v. Devesh Tyagi, FA 1785301 (Forum June 2, 2018) (“Respondent replicates Complainant’s website and displays Complainant’s products. The Panel finds that this use is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) & (iii).”); see also Wolverine World Wide, Inc. v. Fergus Knox, FA 1627751 (Forum Aug. 19, 2015) (finding no bona fide offering of goods or legitimate noncommercial or fair use existed where Respondent used the resolving website to sell products branded with Complainant’s MERRELL mark, and were either counterfeit products or legitimate products of Complainant being resold without authorization). Complainant provides screenshots showing that Respondent offers products unauthorized products featuring Complainant’s logos. 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 Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Complainant argues that Respondent registered and uses the <abrockwell.com> domain name in bad faith because Respondent uses the disputed domain name to pass off as affiliated with Complainant in order to offer unauthorized or counterfeit goods for sale. Using a disputed domain name to pass off as connected with a complainant and to offer unauthorized or counterfeit versions of a complainant’s goods for sale evinces bad faith disruption of a complainant’s business under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and an attempt to attract users for commercial gain under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See H-D U.S.A., LLC v. Linchunming / linchunming, FA1411001589214 (Forum Dec. 22, 2014) (“As mentioned above, Respondent uses the domain name to promote counterfeit goods like those offered by Complainant. Doing so disrupts Complainant’s business and demonstrates Respondent’s bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).”); see also Affliction, Inc. v. Chinasupply, FA 1223521 (Forum Oct. 23, 2008) (finding that the respondent attempts to commercially gain and thus demonstrating bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) by creating confusion as to the complainant’s connection with the website by selling counterfeit products). Accordingly, the Panel finds bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv).
Complainant also argues that Respondent had knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the A-B and ROCKWELL marks when it registered the disputed domain name, based on the fame of the marks and the use of the marks to offer competing goods for sale. The Panel agrees and finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the A-B and ROCKWELL marks when it registered the disputed domain name, showing further bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Sears Brands, LLC v. Airhart, FA 1350469 (Forum Dec. 2, 2010) (stating that constructive notice generally will not suffice for a finding of bad faith); see also 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 <abrockwell.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist
Dated: September 22, 2021
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page