Micron Technology, Inc. v. Domain Admin
Claim Number: FA1709001751078
Complainant is Micron Technology, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Beth Cooperstein of Holland & Hart LLP, Colorado, USA. Respondent is Domain Admin (“Respondent”), Canada.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <micron.group> and <micron.world> (“Domain Names”), registered with Namesilo, LLC.
The undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his or her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Nicholas J.T. Smith as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on September 27, 2017; the Forum received payment on September 27, 2017.
On September 29, 2017, Namesilo, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <micron.group> and <micron.world> domain names are registered with Namesilo, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Namesilo, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Namesilo, 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 October 4, 2017, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of October 24, 2017 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@micron.group and postmaster@micron.world. Also on October 4, 2017, 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.
A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on October 24, 2017.
On October 30, 2017, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Nicholas J.T. Smith 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.
Complainant requests that the Domain Names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Founded in 1978, Complainant is a Fortune 500 company and a global leader in the semiconductor industry. Complainant manufactures and sells a broad range of memory technologies including, but not limited to, DRAM, NAND Flash and NOR Flash, which are the basis for solid-state drives, modules, multi-chip packages, and other system solutions. Complainant registered the MICRON Mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g. Reg. No. 3,174,793, registered Nov. 21, 2006). Respondent’s <micron.group> and <micron.world> domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the MICRON Mark as they contain the MICRON Mark in its entirety and merely add either the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.group” or “.world.”
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names. Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Names, as there is no evidence in the record and Respondent’s identity is masked by a privacy service in the WHOIS information. Complainant also has not authorized, licensed, or otherwise permitted Respondent to use the mark in any domain name or for any other purpose. Respondent does not use the disputed domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, Respondent uses the Domain Names only to attract attention from one or more of the companies whose copyright protected information is replicated on websites to which the Domain Names resolve to (“Respondent’s Websites”), in an attempt to sell the Domain Names for a grossly inflated price.
Respondent registered and uses the Domain Names in bad faith. Respondent uses the Domain Names to aggregate information about various companies around the world named “Micron,” including Complainant, in an attempt to attract attention from one or more of these companies and extract a large sum for the transfer of the Domain Names. Further, Respondent’s use of the Respondent’s Websites may cause consumers to mistakenly believe that the other Micron companies included on the Respondent’s Websites are affiliates of, or somehow otherwise affiliated with, Complainant. Additionally, Respondent uses a privacy service to conceal his/her identity. Finally, Respondent’s use of Complainant’s copyrighted material, and its direct reference to Complainant’s business, conclusively shows that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights to the MICRON Mark.
B. Respondent
There are 3,969 domain names that contain the name MICRON, which are not deemed to be identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark, and only 145 of those are owned by Complainant.
Respondent has full rights and legitimate interests in the Domain Names. Respondent does not compete with Complainant and is in a different class of goods. The Respondent’s Websites contain wiki search engines that allow anyone to add relevant results.
Respondent registered and is using the Domain Names in good faith. Respondent did not register the Domain Names for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the registrations to anyone. Rather, Complainant initiated the offer to purchase the Domain Names. Respondent did not register the Domain Names for the purpose of disrupting the business of Complainant or anyone else. Respondent did not attempt to attract anyone to anywhere by creating a likelihood of confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of anything. Rather, both the Respondent’s Websites contain a free wiki search engine that allows anyone to submit relevant websites and videos of names that contain the term MICRON. Finally the registrant of the Domain Names employs a privacy-shielding service in order to keep its details away from telemarketers, data miners, spammers, and anyone else who might misuse it.
Complainant holds trademark rights for the MICRON mark. The Domain Names are identical to Complainant’s MICRON mark. Complainant has established that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the use of the <micron.group> and <micron.world> domain names and that Respondent registered and uses the Domain Names 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.
Complainant has rights in the MICRON mark based upon registration with the USPTO (e.g. Reg. No. 3,174,793, registered Nov. 21, 2006). Registration of a mark with the USPTO sufficiently confers a complainant’s rights in a mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Humor Rainbow, Inc. v. James Lee, FA 1626154 (Forum Aug. 11, 2015) (stating, “There exists an overwhelming consensus amongst UDRP panels that USPTO registrations are sufficient in demonstrating a complainant’s rights under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) and its vested interests in a mark. . . . Due to Complainant’s attached USPTO registration on the principal register at Exhibit 1, the Panel agrees that it has sufficiently demonstrated its rights per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”).
Complainant contends that the Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar to the MICRON mark as they contain the MICRON mark in its entirety and merely add either the gTLD “.group” or “.world.” The Panel finds that the Domain Names are identical to the MICRON mark; see Thom Browne, Inc. v. Huili Zhang, FA 1358629 (Forum Dec. 22, 2010) (finding that, “The addition of the gTLD ‘.net’ also has no effect on the Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis.”).
The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant alleges that Respondent holds no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names. In order for Complainant to succeed under this element, it must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the Domain Names under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006) and AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Forum Sept. 25, 2006) (“Complainant must first make a prima facie showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names, which burden is light. If Complainant satisfies its burden, then the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain names.”). The Panel holds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case.
Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names as Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Names, nor has Complainant authorized Respondent to use the MICRON mark. WHOIS information can help support a finding that a respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, especially where a privacy service has been engaged. See State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Dale Anderson, FA1504001613011 (Forum May 21, 2015) (concluding that because the WHOIS record lists “Dale Anderson” as the registrant of the disputed domain name, the respondent was not commonly known by the <statefarmforum.com> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)); see also Kohler Co. v. Privacy Service, FA1505001621573 (Forum July 2, 2015) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) where “Privacy Service” was listed as the registrant of the disputed domain name). The WHOIS lists “Domain Admin” as registrant of record. Coupled with Complainant’s unrebutted assertions as to absence of any affiliation between the parties, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Names in accordance with Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
Respondent submits that the Domain Names are used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services since they resolve to websites that allow anyone to submit relevant websites and videos of companies whose names contain the word “Micron”. Respondent’s Websites contain a series of summaries about companies known by names that contain the word “Micron”. Complainant characterizes Respondent’s actions as part of a broader strategy where Respondent creates websites that aggregate information about various companies operating under the name “Micron” in an attempt to attract the attention of one of these companies and solicit an offer to purchase the Domain Names. When Complainant (through an anonymous representative) contacted Respondent, Respondent demanded the sum of $1 to $1.5 million to purchase the Domain Names. Furthermore, Complainant notes that Respondent’s Websites contained material about Complainant taken directly from Complainant’s website without Complainant’s permission.
The Panel accepts Complainant’s characterization of Respondent’s actions. Respondent’s evidence of the use of the Domain Names does not establish a logical reason why it incurred the time and cost of registering the Domain Names and setting up Respondent’s Websites other than as a means of attracting the attention of companies called “Micron”, including Complainant.
Furthermore, prior to the commencement of this proceeding, Respondent’s Websites contained material about Complainant, copied from Complainant’s website by an entity other than Complainant, presumably Respondent. The only logical explanation for the registration and subsequent use of the Domain Names is provided in the Complaint, namely that Respondent registered the Domain Names for subsequent sale and as part of this scheme, created websites that included information about various companies operating under the name “Micron” in an attempt to attract the attention of one of these companies and solicit an offer to purchase the Domain Names.
Offering a confusingly similar domain name for sale can evince a lack of rights and legitimate interests under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See University of Rochester v. Park HyungJin, FA1410001587458 (Forum Dec. 9, 2014) The Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the Domain Names for the sole purpose of soliciting offers for purchase does not amount a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).
The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Complainant contends that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s MICRON mark since the Domain Names resolved to websites that include copyrighted information about Complainant taken directly from the Micron website. The Panel agrees. See Univision Comm'cns Inc. v. Norte, FA 1000079 (Forum Aug. 16, 2007) (rejecting the respondent's contention that it did not register the disputed domain name in bad faith since the panel found that the respondent had knowledge of the complainant's rights in the UNIVISION mark when registering the disputed domain name). The Panel finds that Respondent did have actual knowledge of Complainant’s MICRON mark, demonstrating (in the absence of rights or legitimate interests of its own), registration in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Complainant argues that Respondent’s offering to sell the Domain Names alone is sufficient to find bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). In the present circumstances, the Panel agrees. See Staples, Inc. v. lin yanxiao, FA1505001617686 (Forum June 4, 2015) (“Respondent’s offering to sell the disputed domain name to a third party (in this case, the general public) supports a finding of bad faith registration and use.”) and See Campmor, Inc. v. GearPro.com, FA 197972 (Forum Nov. 5, 2003) (“Respondent registered the disputed domain name and offered to sell it to Complainant for $10,600. This demonstrates bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(i).”). Here, the Domain Names resolve to websites that included information about various companies operating under the name “Micron” as part of a broader strategy of soliciting an offer to purchase the Domain Names. When Respondent was contacted by Complainant, it offered to sell the Domain Names for a sum well in excess of any possible out of pocket costs incurred in respect of the Domain Names. Therefore, the Panel finds Respondent’s conduct falls within the example of bad faith in Policy ¶ 4(b)(i).
The Panel finds 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 <micron.group> and <micron.world> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Nicholas J.T. Smith, Panelist
Dated: November 1, 2017
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page