PopSockets LLC v. san mao
Claim Number: FA1801001766026
Complainant is PopSockets LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Benjamin T. Horton of Marshall, Gerstein & Borun LLP, Illinois, USA. Respondent is san mao ("Respondent"), China.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <popsockets-llc.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 January 9, 2018; the Forum received payment on January 9, 2018.
On January 10, 2018, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by email to the Forum that the <popsockets-llc.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 January 10, 2018, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of January 30, 2018 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@popsockets-llc.com. Also on January 10, 2018, 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 2, 2018, 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 describes itself as "one of the United States’ leading providers of grip and clip accessories for handheld electronic devices." Complainant began using the POPSOCKETS trademark in 2011, and since then has sold more than one million products under the mark, online and in retail stores. Complainant has also licensed third parties to sell Complainant's products on Amazon.com. Complainant owns various U.S. trademark registrations for POPSOCKETS and related marks.
Respondent registered the disputed domain name <popsockets-llc.com> through a privacy registration service in October 2017. Complainant states that no business relationship exists between the parties, and that Respondent has never had permission to use Complainant's marks. Complainant states further that Respondent has been using the disputed domain name to post as Complainant, communicating with Amazon.com in efforts to shut down authorized sellers of Complainant's products. The domain name is being used in email messages but does not resolve to an active website.
Complainant contends on the above grounds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark; that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and that the 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 <popsockets-llc.com> incorporates Complainant's registered mark, adding a hyphen, the generic term "llc," and the ".com" top-level domain. These additions do not substantially diminish the similarity between the domain name and Complainant's mark. See, e.g., PopSockets LLC v. San Mao, FA 1740903 (Forum Aug. 27, 2017) (finding <popsocketsllc.com> confusingly similar to POPSOCKETS); Spence-Chapin Services to Families & Children v. Spence-Chapin, LLC a/k/a Stanley Wynman, FA 105945 (Forum May 6, 2002) (finding <spence‑chapin‑llc.com> confusingly similar to SPENCE-CHAPIN). The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights.
For essentially the same reasons as those set forth in the decision in a prior case involving the same parties, the same trademark, a similar domain name, and nearly identical facts, PopSockets LLC v. San Mao, FA 1740903, supra, 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.
For essentially the same reasons as those set forth in PopSockets LLC v. San Mao, FA 1740903, supra, the Panel finds that Complainant has sustained its burden of proving that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Panel further notes that Respondent appears to have engaged in a pattern of bad faith registrations for purposes of paragraph 4(b)(ii) of the Policy.
Having considered the three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <popsockets-llc.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
David E. Sorkin, Panelist
Dated: February 5, 2018
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page