Caterpillar, Inc v. Patricia Wee
Claim Number: FA2206002001265
Complainant is Caterpillar, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Stephanie H. Bald of Kelly IP, LLP, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is Patricia Wee (“Respondent”), Philippines.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <mrcat181.com>, registered with NameCheap, Inc.
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.
Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on June 21, 2022; the Forum received payment on June 21, 2022.
On June 22, 2022, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <mrcat181.com> domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameCheap, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameCheap, Inc. 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 June 23, 2022, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 13, 2022 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@mrcat181.com. Also on June 23, 2022, 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 July 19, 2022, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Paul M. DeCicco 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 contends as follows:
Complainant is an Illinois-based global manufacturing and technology company.
Complainant claims rights in the CAT mark through registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”).
The at-issue domain name <mrcat181.com> is confusingly similar because it wholly incorporates Complainant’s mark, differing through the addition of the letters “mr” and the numbers “181” as well as the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).
Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the <mrcat181.com> domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name, nor has Complainant authorized Respondent to use the CAT mark in any way. Additionally, Respondent fails to use the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent uses the at-issue domain to pass off as Complainant in furtherance of a phishing scheme.
Respondent registered and uses the at-issue domain name in bad faith. Respondent uses the domain to pass off as Complainant in furtherance of a phishing scheme. Respondent also uses the at-issue domain name to create a likelihood of confusion between the domain name and Complainant’s trademark. Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the CAT mark prior to registering the <mrcat181.com> domain name.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant has rights in the CAT mark.
Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and has not been authorized to use Complainant’s trademark in any capacity.
Respondent registered the at‑issue domain name after Complainant acquired rights in the CAT trademark.
Respondent uses the at-issue domain to pass off as Complainant in furtherance of a phishing scheme
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 at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.
Complainant’s ownership of a USPTO trademark registration for the CAT mark evidences Complainant’s rights in such mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Microsoft Corp. v. Burkes, FA 652743 (Forum Apr. 17, 2006) (“Complainant has established rights in the MICROSOFT mark through registration of the mark with the USPTO.”).
Next, the at-issue domain name contains Complainant’s entire CAT trademark prefixed by “mr” and followed by the number “181,” with all followed by the top level domain name “.com”. The differences between <mrcat181.com> and Complainant’s CAT trademark are insufficient to distinguish the domain name from Complainant’s trademark for the purposes of the Policy. Therefore, the Panel finds that pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) Respondent’s <mrcat181.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s CAT trademark. See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. network admin, FA 1622138 (Forum July 11, 2015) (“The addition, deletion, and switching of . . . numbers in domain names do not remove Respondent’s domain names from the realm of confusing similarity in relation to Complainant’s BLOOMBERG mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”); see also, Am. Online, Inc. v. Amigos On Line RJ, FA 115041 (Forum Aug. 28, 2002) (finding that the <aolrj.com> domain name was confusingly similar to the complainant’s AOL mark because “…the addition of a string of indiscriminate letters to a famous mark in a second level domain does not differentiate the domain name from the mark.”); see also, Empowered Medical Solutions, Inc. d/b/a QRS-Direct and QRS Magnovit AG v. NULL NULL / QUANTRON RESONANCE SYSTEMS / JIM ANDERSON / HTR / unknown HTR / HTR, FA 1784937 (Forum June 8, 2018) (“Adding or removing descriptive terms or a gTLD is insufficient to differentiate a disputed domain name from a complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”).
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. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006). Since Respondent failed to respond, Complainant’s prima facie showing acts conclusively.
Respondent lacks both rights and legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant’s trademark in any capacity and, as discussed below, there are no Policy ¶4(c) circumstances from which the Panel might find that Respondent has rights or interests in respect of the at‑issue domain name. See Emerson Electric Co. v. golden humble / golden globals, FA 1787128 (Forum June 11, 2018) (“lack of evidence in the record to indicate a respondent is authorized to use [the] complainant’s mark may support a finding that [the] respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)”).
WHOIS information for the at-issue domain name identifies the domain name’s registrant as “Patricia Wee” and the record before the Panel contains no evidence that otherwise tends to prove that Respondent is commonly known by the <mrcat181.com> domain name. The Panel therefore concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by <mrcat181.com> for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Coppertown Drive-Thru Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089 (Forum July 17, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <coppertown.com> domain name where there was no evidence in the record, including the WHOIS information, suggesting that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name).
Respondent used the confusingly similar <mrcat181.com> domain name to pass itself off as Complainant and conduct a phishing scheme aimed at internet users seeking technical support for Complainant’s products. Although Respondent’s current <mrcat181.com> website now displays unrelated content it nevertheless uses coding for content copied from Complainant’s genuine website and still shows Respondent’s intent to use <mrcat181.com> for phishing activities. Using the at-issue domain name to pass off as Complainant in furtherance of fraud is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Bittrex, Inc. v. Caroline Alves Maia, FA 1796113 (Forum Aug. 6, 2018) (finding the respondent’s attempt to pass itself of as the complainant was not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).
As discussed below without limitation, circumstances are present from which the Panel concludes that Respondent acted in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶4(a)(iii).
Respondent used the confusingly similar <mrcat181.com> domain name to pass itself off as Complainant and address a website that extensively copied from Complainant’s copyrighted CAT.COM website. Respondent’s <mrcat181.com> website displayed Complainant’s logo and featured a bogus replica of Complainant’s CAT.COM login page. Using the domain name in this manner was disruptive to Complainant’s business and showed Respondent to be exploiting the confusion between <mrcat181.com> and Complainant’s trademark for commercial gain thereby indicating Respondent’s bad faith under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv). See 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.”); see also, Abbvie, Inc. v. James Bulow, FA 1701075 (Forum Nov. 30, 2016) (“Respondent uses the <abbuie.com> domain name to impersonate Complainant’s CEO. Such use is undeniably disruptive to Complainant’s business and demonstrates bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii), and/or Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)”).
Next, Respondent currently uses <mrcat181.com> to address a website that displays content unrelated to Complainant, namely Australian lottery numbers. Such use is nonetheless indicative of Respondent’s bad faith and notably the website’s source code and past use shows Respondent’s continued intention of using the domain name for phishing activities. Respondent’s intended use of the domain name for phishing indicates Respondent’s bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Caterpillar v. Greenwhite Technologies (Forum FA1904001841277) (“. . . Respondent’s passing off as and impersonating authorized dealers of Complainant is also, in and of itself, evidence of bad faith registration and use.”); see also, Yahoo! v. Youjin (Forum FA1109001409001) (holding respondent’s use of the domain name <myyahoonews.com> for a website that collects the personal information of internet users under false pretenses is “evidence of a phishing scheme, which reveals Respondent’s bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶4(a)(iii).”).
Moreover, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the CAT mark when it registered <mrcat181.com> as a domain name. Respondent’s prior knowledge is evident from the notoriety of Complainant’s trademark and from the fact that Respondent’s <mrcat181.com> website featured Complainant’s CAT logo and was designed to appear as if it was affiliated with Complainant, when it was, and is, not. Registering and using the <mrcat181.com> domain name with knowledge of Complainant’s rights in CAT, and thus in the confusingly similar domain name, indicates bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶4(a)(iii). See Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <mrcat181.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist
Dated: July 20, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page