C.V. Starr & Co., Inc. and Starr International Company, Inc. v. Shen Zhong Chao
Claim Number: FA1701001712431
Complainants are C.V. Starr & Co., Inc. and Starr International Company, Inc. ("Complainants"), represented by Dorothy R. Whitney of Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman, P.C., New York, USA. Respondent is Shen Zhong Chao ("Respondent"), People's Republic of China.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <starrwright.com>, <starrwrightusa.com>, and <starr-wrightusa.com>, registered with HiChina Zhicheng Technology Limited.
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.
Complainants submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on January 13, 2017; the Forum received payment on January 13, 2017.
On January 18, 2017, HiChina Zhicheng Technology Limited confirmed by email to the Forum that the <starrwright.com>, <starrwrightusa.com>, and <starr‑wrightusa.com> domain names are registered with HiChina Zhicheng Technology Limited and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. HiChina Zhicheng Technology Limited has verified that Respondent is bound by the HiChina Zhicheng Technology Limited 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 January 19, 2017, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 8, 2017 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@starrwright.com, postmaster@starrwrightusa.com, postmaster@starr-wrightusa.com. Also on January 19, 2017, 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 February 17, 2017, pursuant to Complainants' 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.
Complainants request that the domain names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant Starr International Company, Inc.
A. Complainants
Complainants head a group of related and subsidiary companies in the
insurance and investments fields. Complainants use STARR and related marks in connection with their business, and hold numerous registrations for these marks in the United States, China, and other jurisdictions. On September 26, 2016, Complainants announced that they had acquired Wright USA, an insurance agency and third-party administrator, and would operate it under the name Starr Wright USA. Complainants are currently using STARR WRIGHT USA as a trademark, and a U.S. trademark application is pending.
On September 26, 2016, Respondent registered the disputed domain names <starrwright.com>, <starrwrightusa.com>, and <starr-wrightusa.com>. The domain names do not resolve to an active website. Complainants state that Respondent is not known by the marks or disputed domain names, is not a licensee of Complainants, and has never been authorized to use Complainants' marks. Complainants contend on these grounds that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to Complainants' registered STARR marks; that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names; and that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
The Panel finds that each of the disputed domain names is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainants have rights; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names; and that the disputed domain names were registered and are 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 Complainants 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 Complainants have 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 Complainants' 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 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 (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.").
The Panel notes that the Registration Agreement is written in Chinese, thereby making that the language of the proceedings. Pursuant to Rule 11(a), the Panel determines that the language requirement has been satisfied through the Chinese language Complaint and Commencement Notification, and, absent a Response, concludes that the remainder of the proceedings may be conducted in English. See, e.g., Pierre Balmain S.A. v. Zhong Sheng, D2016-1795 (WIPO Oct. 28, 2016); JBG/Lionhead, L.L.C. v. Shen Zhong Chao, FA 1682938 (Forum Aug. 25, 2016); Compagnie Générale des Etablissements Michelin v. Shen Zhong Chao, D2016-0408 (WIPO Apr. 27, 2016); Accenture Global Services Ltd. v. Shenzhongchao Shen, D2016-0198 (WIPO Mar. 16, 2016); Motorola Trademark Holdings, LLC v. Shaoxiaogen, Xiaogen Shao, Gaohaolvshishiwusuo, Shenzhongchao, Zhongchao Shen, D2012-1780 (WIPO Nov. 7, 2012).
The disputed domain names <starrwright.com>, <starrwrightusa.com>, and <starr-wrightusa.com> correspond to Complainants' registered STARR mark, adding the name of Complainant's new subsidiary and the ".com" top-level domain, and omitting spaces or substituting a hyphen. These changes do not substantially diminish the similarity between the domain names and Complainants' mark for purposes of the Policy. See, e.g., Target Brands, Inc. v. M. V. P. / MV Professional Marketing Services, FA 1644580 (Forum Dec. 8, 2015) (finding <targetcvs.com> confusingly similar to TARGET); C.V. Starr & Co. & Starr Int'l Co. v. Martin Guy, FA 1606759 (Forum Apr. 6, 2015) (finding <starr‑ins.com> confusingly similar to STARR and related marks); Microsoft Corp. v. Yaser Taheri c/o Nikrayan Parsian, FA 1391119 (Forum June 27, 2011) (finding <microsoftskype.us> confusingly similar to MICROSOFT). The Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainants' mark.
Under the Policy, Complainants must first make a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names, and then the burden shifts to the Respondent to come forward with concrete evidence of such rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm't Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006).
The disputed domain names incorporate Complainants' mark without authorization and correspond to the name of Complainants' subsidiary, and Respondent does not appear to have made any use of the domain names. Complainants have made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain names, and Respondent has failed to come forward with any evidence of such rights or interests. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainants have sustained their burden of proving that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names.
Finally, Complainants must show that the disputed domain names were registered and have been used in bad faith. Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets forth the following circumstances that serve as evidence of bad faith:
(1) the domain name was registered primarily for the purpose of profiting from the sale or transfer to Complainant or a competitor thereof;
(2) the domain name was registered to prevent Complainant from reflecting its mark in a corresponding domain name, by one who has engaged in a pattern of such conduct;
(3) the domain name was registered primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(4) the domain name has been used intentionally to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent's website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark.
The instances of bad faith set forth in paragraph 4(b) are merely illustrative, and bad faith may be found based upon other circumstances in appropriate cases, such as where a domain name relating to a merger, acquisition, or venture is registered immediately after a public announcement thereof. See, e.g., Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Robert Nichols, FA 1693499 (Forum Oct. 20, 2016) (finding opportunistic bad faith in registration of <amazonvehicles.com> within days after announcement of Amazon Vehicles site); Target Brands, Inc. v. M. V. P. / MV Professional Marketing Services, supra (finding opportunistic bad faith in registration of <targetcvs.com> and similar domain names one day after announcement that CVS would acquire Target's pharmacy operations); Microsoft Corp. v. Yaser Taheri c/o Nikrayan Parsian, supra (finding opportunistic bad faith in registration of <microsoftskype.us> one day after announcement of Microsoft's acquisition of Skype).
Respondent's registration of <starrwright.com>, <starrwrightusa.com>, and <starr‑wrightusa.com> occurred on the very same day that Complainants announced they were acquiring Wright USA and would operate it under the name Starr Wright USA, and in the Panel's view was a clear instance of opportunistic 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 <starrwright.com>, <starrwrightusa.com>, and <starr-wrightusa.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant Starr International Company, Inc.
__________________________________________________________________
David E. Sorkin, Panelist
Dated: February 24, 2017
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page