Dell Inc. v. Pritam Singh c/o Pandaje Technical Services Pvt Ltd.
Claim Number: FA1511001645279
Complainant is Dell Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by S. Erik Combs, Texas, United States. Respondent is Pritam Singh c/o Pandaje Technical Services Pvt Ltd. (“Respondent”), Delaware, United States.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <delltechnicalsupportnumbers.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.
The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.) as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on November 3, 2015; the Forum received payment on November 3, 2015.
On November 3, 2015, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <delltechnicalsupportnumbers.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 November 5, 2015, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of November 25, 2015 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@delltechnicalsupportnumbers.com. Also on November 5, 2015, 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 December 10, 2015, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed the Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.) 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 world leader in computers, computer accessories, and other computer-related products and services. Complainant has registered the DELL mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 1,860,272, registered October 25, 1994), which demonstrates Complainant’s rights in its mark. The <delltechnicalsupportnumbers.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark as it incorporates Complainant’s mark and merely adds the generic terms “technical support” and “numbers” and the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.”
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. First, Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name or any variant of Complainant’s mark. Second, Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant’s mark. Finally, Respondent is not making a bona fide offering of goods or services through the disputed domain name or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, Respondent uses its disputed domain name to deceive Internet users into thinking that Respondent or Respondent’s business is Complainant or at least affiliated or connected with, or authorized by, Complainant.
Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. First, Respondent uses the disputed domain name to disrupt and compete with Complainant. Second, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s website by creating a likelihood of confusion. Third, Respondent is engaged in the tactic of phishing, thereby attempting to gather Internet users’ personal information after falsely creating an association with Complainant. Finally, Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s mark.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Dell Inc., is a world leader in computers, computer accessories, and other computer-related products and services. Complainant owns rights in the DELL mark through registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 1,860,272, registered October 25, 1994). The <delltechnicalsupportnumbers.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark as it incorporates Complainant’s mark and adds the generic terms “technical support” and “numbers” and the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.”
Respondent, Pritam Singh c/o Pandaje Technical Services Pvt Ltd., registered the <delltechnicalsupportnumbers.com> domain name on August 6, 2015.
Respondent uses its disputed domain name to deceive Internet users into thinking that Respondent or Respondent’s business is Complainant or at least affiliated or connected with, or authorized by, Complainant. Respondent is engaged in the tactic of phishing, thereby attempting to gather Internet users’ personal information after falsely creating an association with Complainant.
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(e), 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 and inferences set forth in the Complaint as true unless the evidence is clearly contradictory. See Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 31, 2000) (holding that the respondent’s failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of the complaint to be deemed true); see also Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009 (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000) (“In the absence of a response, it is appropriate to accept as true all allegations of the Complaint.”).
Complainant owns rights in the DELL mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through registration with the USPTO. See Paisley Park Enters. v. Lawson, FA 384834 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 1, 2005) (concluding that the complainant had established rights in the PAISLEY PARK mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through registration of the mark with the USPTO).
Respondent’s <delltechnicalsupportnumbers.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) as it incorporates Complainant’s mark and adds the generic terms “technical support” and “numbers” and the gTLD “.com.”
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the <delltechnicalsupportnumbers.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use Complainant’s mark. The WHOIS information lists “Pritam Singh c/o Pandaje Technical Services Pvt Ltd.” as registrant. See Coppertown Drive-Thru Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089 (Nat. Arb. 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 is not using the <delltechnicalsupportnumbers.com> domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). Respondent uses the disputed domain name to deceive Internet users into thinking that Respondent or Respondent’s business is Complainant or at least affiliated or connected with, or authorized by, Complainant. Past panels have held that there is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) where a respondent uses a disputed domain name in an attempt to pass itself off as a complainant. See Mortgage Research Center LLC v. Miranda, FA 993017 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 9, 2007) (“Because [the] respondent in this case is also attempting to pass itself off as [the] complainant, presumably for financial gain, the Panel finds the respondent is not using the <mortgageresearchcenter.org> domain name for 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).”).
Respondent uses the <delltechnicalsupportnumbers.com> domain name to disrupt and compete with Complainant, thereby violating Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See Spark Networks PLC v. Houlihan, FA 653476 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 18, 2006) (holding that the respondent’s registration of a domain name substantially similar to the complainant’s AMERICAN SINGLES mark in order to operate a competing online dating website supported a finding that respondent registered and used the domain name to disrupt the complainant’s business under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)).
Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s website by creating a likelihood of confusion. Respondent’s website located at <delltechnicalsupportnumbers.com> prominently displays a version of the Dell logo at the top of each page along with the words “Technical Support Number.” Respondent’s website prominently displays pictures of Dell products and copies the look and feel of Complainant’s official <dell.com> website, utilizing similar colors and fonts to those used by Complainant on its official website. Respondent uses its website to promote computer support services, which consumers are likely to associate with Complainant, referring to Respondent as by titles such as “Dell Technical Support Phone Numbers,” “Dell Tech Support,” and “Dell Customer Support.” Respondent seeks to mislead consumers with statements such as “You have arrived at the right destination to get Dell support for all computers [sic] devices at one place.” Respondent also is attempting to gather Internet users’ personal information at the “Dell Customer” page of its website through a “Contact Us” form. Respondent presumably commercially benefits from abusing that information and/or by selling that information to third parties. Therefore, Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
Respondent is engaged in the tactic of phishing, thereby attempting to gather Internet users’ personal information after falsely creating an association with Complainant. Previous panels have concluded that a disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) where the respondent used the domain name to fraudulently acquire personal and/or financial information from the complainant’s customers. See Capital One Fin. Corp. v. Howel, FA 289304 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 11, 2004) (finding bad faith registration and use because the respondent used the domain name to redirect Internet users to a website that imitated the complainant’s website and to fraudulently acquire personal information from the complainant’s clients).
Respondent registered the <delltechnicalsupportnumbers.com> domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s mark; therefore, Respondent registered the domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Yahoo! Inc. v. Butler, FA 744444 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 17, 2006) (finding bad faith where the respondent was “well-aware” of the complainant’s YAHOO! mark at the time of registration).
Complainant having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <delltechnicalsupportnumbers.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.), Panelist
Dated: December 15, 2015
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page