Micron Technology, Inc. v. N Rahmany
Claim Number: FA1711001758827
Complainant is Micron Technology, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by John C. Cain of Fleckman & McGlynn, PLLC, Texas, USA. Respondent is N Rahmany (“Respondent”), California, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <micron.technology>, 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.
Hon. Karl v. Fink (Ret.) as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on November 16, 2017; the Forum received payment on November 16, 2017.
On November 16, 2017, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <micron.technology> 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 16, 2017, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of December 6, 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.technology. Also on November 16, 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 November 22, 2017.
On November 27, 2017, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Hon. Karl V. Fink (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.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant uses the MICRON mark in connection with semiconductor devices, computer memory devices, computer storage devices, computer peripherals and components and custom design, manufacture, sales and service of such devices. Complainant registered the MICRON mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g. Reg. No. 2,142,670, registered Mar. 10, 1998). Respondent’s <micron.technology> domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark as it consists of Complainant’s exact MICRON mark with the mere addition of the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.technology.”
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <micron.technology> domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Complainant authorized, licensed, or otherwise permitted Respondent to use the mark. Respondent also does not use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, Respondent merely uses the resolving domain to offer the domain name for sale to the public. When Complainant contacted Respondent about purchasing the domain name, Respondent offered the domain name for $100,000.00, in great excess of out-of-pocket costs.
Respondent registered and uses the <micron.technology> domain name in bad faith. Respondent offered the domain name for sale to Complainant for $100,000.00. Further, Complainant’s MICRON mark is extensively advertised and well-known, not only in its computer memory and computer storage market area, but also to the general public; thus, Respondent had actual or constructive knowledge of Complainant’s MICRON mark prior to the registration of the disputed domain name.
B. Respondent
The <micron.technology> domain name is not confusingly similar to the MICRON mark as there are numerous companies using the MICRON mark.
Respondent has been working to develop the domain name to build a website that sells the latest electronic items, such as satellite telephone, glowing phone cases, and other electronic gadgets. Respondent did not and has not been interested in selling the domain name; rather, Complainant approached and harassed Respondent about purchasing the domain name. Further, there are many companies using the MICRON mark or a combination of the MICRON mark.
Respondent registered the <micron.technology> domain name in good faith in order to open a new, profitable business and create more jobs for the American people. Further, Complainant was the one who approached Respondent about purchasing the domain name, and Respondent did not purchase it with the intention to sell it to anyone.
Respondent first registered the <micron.technology> domain name on April 9, 2015.
For the reasons set forth below, the Panel finds Complainant is entitled to the requested relief of transfer of the <micron.technology> domain name.
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 claims it registered the MICRON mark with the USPTO (e.g. Reg. No. 2,142,670, registered Mar. 10, 1998). 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).”). Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has established rights in the MICRON mark.
Complainant next argues that Respondent’s <micron.technology> domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark as it consists of Complainant’s exact MICRON mark with the mere addition of the gTLD “.technology.” Similar changes in a registered mark have failed to sufficiently distinguish a domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶4(a)(i). See Trip Network Inc. v. Alviera, FA 914943 (Forum Mar. 27, 2007) (concluding that the affixation of a gTLD to a domain name is irrelevant to a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis). The Panel finds that the <micron.technology> domain name is identical to the MICRON mark under Policy ¶4(a)(i).
Complainant has proved this element.
Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name 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) (holding that the complainant must first make a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under UDRP ¶ 4(a)(ii) before the burden shifts to the respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in a domain name); see also 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.”).
Complainant contends that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <micron.technology> domain name. Relevant information includes the WHOIS and any other assertions by a complainant regarding the nature of its relationship with a respondent. See Braun Corp. v. Loney, FA 699652 (Forum July 7, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain names where the WHOIS information, as well as all other information in the record, gave no indication that the respondent was commonly known by the domain names, and the complainant had not authorized the respondent to register a domain name containing its registered mark). The WHOIS identifies “N Rahmany” as the registrant. Complainant asserts that no evidence exists to show that Respondent has ever been legitimately known by the MICRON mark. Panels may use these assertions as evidence of lacking rights or legitimate interests. See Navistar International Corporation v. N Rahmany, FA1505001620789 (Forum June 8, 2015) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name where the complainant had never authorized the respondent to incorporate its NAVISTAR mark in any domain name registration). Complainant alleges that Respondent has never been legitimately affiliated with Complainant, has never been known by the disputed domain name prior to its registration, and Complainant has not given Respondent permission to use the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the Panel agrees that Respondent is not commonly known by the <micron.technology> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
Further, Complainant claims that Respondent offers the disputed domain name for sale. Offering a confusingly similar domain name for sale to the public can evince a lack of rights and legitimate interests under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) & (iii). See University of Rochester v. Park HyungJin, FA1410001587458 (Forum Dec. 9, 2014) (“The Panel finds Respondent’s willingness to sell this <perifacts.com> domain name in excess of out-of-pocket registration costs weighs against Respondent’s case for rights or legitimate interests in the domain name.”). Complainant provides an email, which shows that Respondent responded to Complainant’s offer to purchase with an amount of $100,000.00. The Panel finds that Respondent offered the disputed domain name for sale for a price in excess of out-of-pocket costs and failed to make a bona fide offer of good or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) & (iii).
Complainant has proved this element.
Respondent has offered no evidence of making any efforts to develop and use the domain for a legitimate purpose.
Complainant claims that Respondent offered to sell the <micron.technology> domain name to Complainant in excess of out-of-pocket costs. Offering a confusingly similar domain name for sale in excess of out-of-pocket costs can evince bad faith registration. 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).”). Complainant provides a screenshot of an email thread showing that Respondent offered the domain name for sale to Complainant for $100,000.00. The Panel finds Respondent’s offering of the domain name for sale directly to Complainant for a price in excess of out-of-pocket costs is evidence of bad faith registration.
Finally, Complainant claims that Respondent had actual or constructive knowledge of Complainant’s MICRON mark. The Panel agrees with Complainant, however, that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the mark prior to registering the disputed domain name and finds that actual knowledge does adequately evince bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). 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). Complainant contends that Respondent must have had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the MICRON mark that is extensively advertised and well-known, not only in its computer memory and computer storage market area, but also to the general public. This allegation is not denied by Respondent. The Panel agrees with Complainant and finds that Respondent did have actual knowledge of Complainant’s mark, demonstrating bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Complainant has proved this element.
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 <micron.technology> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
__________________________________________________________________
Hon. Karl V. Fink (Ret.) Panelist
Dated: November 29, 2017
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page