Baylor University v. mary siegel
Claim Number: FA1804001782084
Complainant is Baylor University ("Complainant"), represented by Wendy C. Larson, Texas, USA. Respondent is mary siegel ("Respondent"), China.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <baylorlock.com>, registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com.
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 April 17, 2018; the Forum received payment on April 17, 2018.
On April 18, 2018, PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com confirmed by email to the Forum that the <baylorlock.com> domain name is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com 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 April 18, 2018, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of May 8, 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@baylorlock.com. Also on April 18, 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 May 11, 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 was chartered in 1845 and is the oldest continually operating institution of higher learning in Texas and the largest Baptist university in the world. Complainant has used the BAYLOR mark in connection with its products and services for many years, and owns numerous trademark registrations for BAYLOR and related marks in the United States, China, and other countries. Complainant also claims common law rights in the BAYLOR marks, and notes that a court has found the BAYLOR mark to be "distinctive and famous."
The disputed domain name <baylorlock.com> was registered in November 2017. The domain name is being used for a website that sells unlicensed, counterfeit jerseys featuring Complainant's marks. Complainant states that the BAYLOR marks are not licensed to Respondent, that Respondent has no independent rights in the marks, and that neither Complainant nor its licensees have any relationship with Respondent.
Complainant states further that Respondent's email address is associated with domain name registrations for other domain names that incorporate various universities' trademarks, presumably without permission, including <clemsonlock.com>, <lsuteamgoods.com>, <msuspartanshop.com>, <ousoonerstore.com>, <pennstateteamsport.com>, and many others. Many of these domain names resolve to websites that are similar or identical to the one associated with the domain name is at issue in this proceeding.
Complainant also accuses Respondent of using false contact information to register the disputed domain name. The registration data includes a physical address in the United States, but lists "Other" for the city and state, China for the country, a Chinese telephone number, and a six-digit postal code that does not appear to be valid for either the United States or China. (The domain name in Respondent's email address appears to belong to a service provider in Hungary.)
Complainant contends on the above grounds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests 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 <baylorlock.com> incorporates Complainant's registered BAYLOR mark, adding the generic term "lock" 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., Baylor University v. Wallace Voelker, FA 1701384 (Forum Dec. 12, 2016) (finding <baylorapparel.org> confusingly similar to BAYLOR); Baylor University v. Mike Pocsik, FA 1456685 (Forum Sept. 7, 2012) (finding <baylornation.com> confusingly similar to BAYLOR). The Panel considers the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights).
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 mark without authorization, and its only apparent use has been for a website that promotes unlicensed, counterfeit products bearing Complainant's mark in a manner designed to deceive users into believing that there is a connection between Respondent and Complainant. Such use does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests. See, e.g., Baylor University v. Jack Lee, FA 1753739 (Forum Nov. 10, 2017) (finding lack of rights or legitimate interests under similar circumstances); Baylor University v. Wallace Voelker, supra (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 registered a domain name obviously intended to create confusion with Complainant, furnishing at least partially fictitious contact information. The domain name is being used for a website that exploits this confusion, offering for sale unlicensed, counterfeit products bearing Complainant's mark. The website appears to be part of a broader scheme involving other domain names and nearly identical websites. Respondent's conduct clearly evinces bad faith registration and use under paragraphs 4(b)(iii) and 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. See, e.g., Baylor University v. Jack Lee, supra (finding bad faith registration and use under similar circumstances); Baylor University v. Wallace Voelker, 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 <baylorlock.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
David E. Sorkin, Panelist
Dated: May 11, 2018
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page