Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. v. Kevin Jonson
Claim Number: FA1710001755743
Complainant is Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. ("Complainant"), represented by James F. Struthers of Richard Law Group, Inc., Texas, USA. Respondent is Kevin Jonson ("Respondent"), New York, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <hpprinterhelpdesk.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.
David E. Sorkin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on October 26, 2017; the Forum received payment on October 26, 2017.
On October 26, 2017, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by email to the Forum that the <hpprinterhelpdesk.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 October 26, 2017, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of November 15, 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@hpprinterhelpdesk.com. Also on October 26, 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 November 20, 2017, pursuant to Complainant's 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.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant is a leading global provider of printers and other products and services. According to Alexa Internet, Complainant’s website at <hp.com> is among the most visited websites in the U.S. and worldwide, and is the most visited website in the category of computer hardware. Complainant has used the HP trademark in connection with its products and services since at least as early as 1941. Complainant also uses a distinctive logo that includes the letters “H” and “P” in a circle. The word mark and logo are the subjects of numerous U.S. trademark registrations. Complainant asserts that the word mark and logo have become famous as a result of Complainant’s promotional efforts and commercial success, and have been so found in previous proceedings under the Policy.
Respondent registered the disputed domain name <hpprinterhelpdesk.com> in March 2017. Complainant states that Respondent is not commonly known by the HP mark or any variation thereof; is not licensed to use the HP mark; and is not an authorized vendor, supplier, or distributor of Complainant’s goods and services. The disputed domain name is being used for a website that promotes paid technical support services. The website prominently displays the HP logo, images of Complainant’s products, and a false statement identifying Respondent as a partner of Complainant. A vague and inconspicuous disclaimer appears at the bottom of the page.
Complainant contends, on the grounds set forth above, that the disputed domain name <hpprinterhelpdesk.com> is confusingly similar to its HP mark; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate rights in the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is 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 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 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 disputed domain name adds the generic terms “printer” and “helpdesk” to Complainant’s registered HP mark, along with the “.com” top-level domain. These additions do not substantially diminish the similarity between the domain name and Complainant's mark. See, e.g., Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Suzen Khan / Nancy Jain / Andrew Stanzy, FA 1741129 (Forum Aug. 16, 2017) (finding <amazonprimehelpdesk.com> confusingly similar to AMAZON PRIME); Hewlett-Packard Development Co., L.P. v. Bandeep Singh, FA 1709313 (Forum Feb. 8, 2017) (finding <hpprinterinstalls.com> confusingly similar to HP); Seiko Epson Corp. v. Asish Sen, FA 1702054 (Forum Dec. 12, 2016) (finding <epsonprinterhelpline.net> confusingly similar to EPSON). The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark.
Under the Policy, Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and then the burden shifts to 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 name incorporates Complainant's famous registered mark without authorization, and is being used to promote competing services by creating a false impression of affiliation with or endorsement by Complainant. See, e.g., Hewlett-Packard Development Co., L.P. v. Bandeep Singh, supra (finding lack of rights or legitimate interests where domain name incorporating HP mark was used for website passing off as HP and offering competing services); Hewlett-Packard Development Co., L.P. v. Joban, FA 1563533 (Forum July 14, 2014) (same).
Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name, and Respondent has failed to come forward with any evidence of such rights or interests. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has sustained its burden of proving that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
Finally, Complainant must show that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Under paragraph 4(b)(iii) of the Policy, bad faith may be shown by evidence that Respondent registered the disputed domain name "primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor." Under paragraph 4(b)(iv), bad faith may be shown by evidence that "by using the domain name, [Respondent] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [Respondent's] web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [Respondent's] web site or location or of a product or service on [Respondent's] web site or location."
Respondent's registration of a domain name incorporating Complainant’s famous mark, together the use of the domain name for a commercial website that promotes directly competing services by creating confusion with Complainant, is indicative of bad faith under these provisions of the Policy. See, e.g., Hewlett-Packard Development Co., L.P. v. Bandeep Singh, supra (finding bad faith where domain name incorporating HP mark was used for website passing off as HP and offering competing services); Hewlett-Packard Development Co., L.P. v. Joban, supra (same). The Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in 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 <hpprinterhelpdesk.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
David E. Sorkin, Panelist
Dated: November 21, 2017
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page