Time Warner Inc. v. Zhichao Yang
Claim Number: FA1305001500968
Complainant is Time Warner Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by James R. Davis of Arent Fox LLP, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is Zhichao Yang (“Respondent”), China.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <timewanecable.com>, <timewanercablespecial.com>, <timewardnercable.com>, <timewarmecable.com>, <timewarnbercable.com>, <timewarnercabla.com>, <timewarnercablec.com>, <timewarnercabli.com>, <timewarnercabloe.com>, <timewarnercablre.com>, <timewarnercabre.com>, <timewarnercabvle.com>, <timewarnercacble.com>, <timewarnercaple.com>, <timewarnercavble.com>, <timewarnerceble.com>, <timewarnercoble.com>, <timewarnercqble.com>, <timewarnercsable.com>, <timewarnercvable.com>, <timewarnercxable.com>, <timewarnerfable.com>, <timewarnerkable.com>, <timewarnersable.com>, <timewarnertable.com>, <timewarnerxcable.com>, <timewarnetrcable.com>, <timewarrercable.com>, <timewatrnercable.com>, <timewirnercable.com>, <timewsarnercable.com>, <httptimewarnercable.com>, <itimewarnercable.com>, <twcreward.com>, <wwwtimewarnecable.com>, <wwwtimeswarnercable.com>, <timecwarnercable.com>, <timerswarnercable.com>, <timevwarnercable.com>, <timerwarnecable.com>, <timeswarnecable.com>, <wwwwtimewarnercable.com>, <itmewarnercable.com>, <timewarnercaber.com>, <timeqwarnercable.com>, <timewarnervcable.com>, <timewarnercablo.com>, <timewarnercabkle.com>, <timewarnercabole.com>, and <timewarnercabnle.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.
James A. Carmody, Esq., as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on May 21, 2013; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on May 21, 2013.
On May 22, 2013, Godaddy.Com, Llc confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <timewanecable.com>, <timewanercablespecial.com>, <timewardnercable.com>, <timewarmecable.com>, <timewarnbercable.com>, <timewarnercabla.com>, <timewarnercablec.com>, <timewarnercabli.com>, <timewarnercabloe.com>, <timewarnercablre.com>, <timewarnercabre.com>, <timewarnercabvle.com>, <timewarnercacble.com>, <timewarnercaple.com>, <timewarnercavble.com>, <timewarnerceble.com>, <timewarnercoble.com>, <timewarnercqble.com>, <timewarnercsable.com>, <timewarnercvable.com>, <timewarnercxable.com>, <timewarnerfable.com>, <timewarnerkable.com>, <timewarnersable.com>, <timewarnertable.com>, <timewarnerxcable.com>, <timewarnetrcable.com>, <timewarrercable.com>, <timewatrnercable.com>, <timewirnercable.com>, <timewsarnercable.com>, <httptimewarnercable.com>, <itimewarnercable.com>, <twcreward.com>, <wwwtimewarnecable.com>, <wwwtimeswarnercable.com>, <timecwarnercable.com>, <timerswarnercable.com>, <timevwarnercable.com>, <timerwarnecable.com>, <timeswarnecable.com>, <wwwwtimewarnercable.com>, <itmewarnercable.com>, <timewarnercaber.com>, <timeqwarnercable.com>, <timewarnervcable.com>, <timewarnercablo.com>, <timewarnercabkle.com>, <timewarnercabole.com>, and <timewarnercabnle.com> domain names are registered with Godaddy.Com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. 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 May 23, 2013, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of June 12, 2013 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@timewanecable.com, postmaster@timewanercablespecial.com, postmaster@timewardnercable.com, postmaster@timewarmecable.com, postmaster@timewarnbercable.com, postmaster@timewarnercabla.com, postmaster@timewarnercablec.com, postmaster@timewarnercabli.com, postmaster@timewarnercabloe.com, postmaster@timewarnercablre.com, postmaster@timewarnercabre.com, postmaster@timewarnercabvle.com, postmaster@timewarnercacble.com, postmaster@timewarnercaple.com, postmaster@timewarnercavble.com, postmaster@timewarnerceble.com, postmaster@timewarnercoble.com, postmaster@timewarnercqble.com, postmaster@timewarnercsable.com, postmaster@timewarnercvable.com, postmaster@timewarnercxable.com, postmaster@timewarnerfable.com, postmaster@timewarnerkable.com, postmaster@timewarnersable.com, postmaster@timewarnertable.com, postmaster@timewarnerxcable.com, postmaster@timewarnetrcable.com, postmaster@timewarrercable.com, postmaster@timewatrnercable.com, postmaster@timewirnercable.com, postmaster@timewsarnercable.com, postmaster@httptimewarnercable.com, postmaster@itimewarnercable.com, postmaster@twcreward.com, postmaster@wwwtimewarnecable.com, postmaster@wwwtimeswarnercable.com, postmaster@timecwarnercable.com, postmaster@timerswarnercable.com, postmaster@timevwarnercable.com, postmaster@timerwarnecable.com, postmaster@timeswarnecable.com, postmaster@wwwwtimewarnercable.com, postmaster@itmewarnercable.com, postmaster@timewarnercaber.com, postmaster@timeqwarnercable.com, postmaster@timewarnervcable.com, postmaster@timewarnercablo.com, postmaster@timewarnercabkle.com, postmaster@timewarnercabole.com, and postmaster@timewarnercabnle.com. Also on May 23, 2013, 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.
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On June 18, 2013, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed James A. Carmody, Esq., as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the National Arbitration 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 National Arbitration 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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant makes the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s <timewanecable.com>, <timewanercablespecial.com>, <timewardnercable.com>, <timewarmecable.com>, <timewarnbercable.com>, <timewarnercabla.com>, <timewarnercablec.com>, <timewarnercabli.com>, <timewarnercabloe.com>, <timewarnercablre.com>, <timewarnercabre.com>, <timewarnercabvle.com>, <timewarnercacble.com>, <timewarnercaple.com>, <timewarnercavble.com>, <timewarnerceble.com>, <timewarnercoble.com>, <timewarnercqble.com>, <timewarnercsable.com>, <timewarnercvable.com>, <timewarnercxable.com>, <timewarnerfable.com>, <timewarnerkable.com>, <timewarnersable.com>, <timewarnertable.com>, <timewarnerxcable.com>, <timewarnetrcable.com>, <timewarrercable.com>, <timewatrnercable.com>, <timewirnercable.com>, <timewsarnercable.com>, <httptimewarnercable.com>, <itimewarnercable.com>, <twcreward.com>, <wwwtimewarnecable.com>, <wwwtimeswarnercable.com>, <timecwarnercable.com>, <timerswarnercable.com>, <timevwarnercable.com>, <timerwarnecable.com>, <timeswarnecable.com>, <wwwwtimewarnercable.com>, <itmewarnercable.com>, <timewarnercaber.com>, <timeqwarnercable.com>, <timewarnervcable.com>, <timewarnercablo.com>, <timewarnercabkle.com>, <timewarnercabole.com>, and <timewarnercabnle.com> domain names, the domain names at issue, are confusingly similar to Complainant’s TIME WARNER mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the domain names at issue.
3. Respondent registered and used the domain names at issue in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Time Warner Inc., is a leading media and entertainment company, whose businesses include interactive services, filmed entertainment, animation, television networks, and publishing. Complainant is the owner of trademark registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) for the TIME WARNER mark (e.g., Reg. No. 1,816,474, registered January 11, 1994); for the TIME WARNER CABLE mark (e.g., Reg. No. 3,972,845, registered June 7, 2011); for the TIME WARNER CENTER mark (Reg. No. 2,971,049, registered July 19, 2005); and for the TWC mark (Reg. No. 4,072,265, registered October 10, 1995). The disputed domains are nearly identical and confusingly similar to the TIME WARNER marks. Consumer confusion is particularly likely because each of the domain names is a common misspelling of the TIME WARNER marks or a combination of one of the marks with a generic or descriptive term.
Respondent is not commonly known as any of the TIME WARNER marks. Respondent is using the disputed domains with commercial websites that promote, among other things, many of Complainant’s competitors’ services. In addition to the 50 domain names at issue in this dispute, Respondent has been ordered to transfer infringing domain names in at least eleven UDRP disputes since October 2012. Respondent has used, and continues to use, the disputed domains with commercial websites that include links to third party sites that, in many cases, provide services that compete with Complainant’s. Respondent is deemed to at least have had constructive knowledge of Complainant’s rights in its TIME WARNER marks by virtue of the federal trademark registrations that were in existence when Respondent registered the disputed domains. It is inconceivable that Respondent did not have actual knowledge of Complainant when the disputed domains were registered. The earliest date on which Respondent registered one of the disputed domain names is July 15, 2012.
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(e), 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 (Nat. Arb. 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.”).
Complainant is a leading media and entertainment company, whose businesses include interactive services, filmed entertainment, animation, television networks, and publishing. Complainant is the owner of trademark registrations with the USPTO for the TIME WARNER mark (e.g., Reg. No. 1,816,474, registered January 11, 1994); for the TIME WARNER CABLE mark (e.g., Reg. No. 3,972,845, registered June 7, 2011); for the TIME WARNER CENTER mark (Reg. No. 2,971,049, registered July 19, 2005); and for the TWC mark (Reg. No. 4,072,265, registered October 10, 1995). Respondent appears to reside and operate in China However, it is irrelevant under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) whether Complainant has registered its trademark in the country of Respondent’s residence, so long as Complainant can establish rights in some jurisdiction. See Renaissance Hotel Holdings, Inc. v. Renaissance Cochin, FA 932344 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 23, 2007) (finding that it does not matter whether the complainant has registered its trademark in the country in which the respondent resides, only that it can establish rights in some jurisdiction). Accordingly, Complainant has established rights in its TIME WARNER, TIME WARNER CABLE, TIME WARNER CENTER, and TWC marks pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through its registration of the marks with the USPTO. See AOL LLC v. Interrante, FA 681239 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 23, 2006) (finding that, where the complainant had submitted evidence of its registration with the USPTO, “such evidence establishes complainant’s rights in the mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)”).
The disputed domains are nearly identical and confusingly similar to the TIME WARNER marks. Consumer confusion is particularly likely because each of the domain names is a common misspelling of the TIME WARNER marks or a combination of one of the marks with a generic or descriptive term. Respondent adds the generic term “reward” to its <twcreward.com> domain name. Respondent’s addition of a generic term to a domain name does not distinguish the domain name from Complainant’s TWC mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Warner Bros. Entm’t Inc. v. Rana, FA 304696 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 21, 2004) (finding that the addition of the generic term “collection” to Complainant’s HARRY POTTER mark failed to distinguish the domain name from the mark). Respondent also adds the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com” to its <twcreward.com> domain name. This addition of a gTLD to Complainant’s TWC mark is irrelevant to a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis. See Bank of Am. Corp. v. McCall, FA 135012 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 31, 2002) (holding that attaching a gTLD is “unable to create a distinction capable of overcoming a finding of confusing similarity”). Thus, Respondent’s <twcreward.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s TWC mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Respondent removes letters from Complainant’s TIME WARNER CABLE mark in its <timewanecable.com>, <timewanercablespecial.com>, <wwwtimewarnecable.com>, <timeswarnecable.com>, <timerwarnecable.com>, and <timewarmecable.com> domain names. The removal of letters from a mark does not distinguish Respondent’s domain names from Complainant’s TIME WARNER CABLE mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Pfizer Inc. v. BargainName.com, D2005-0299 (WIPO Apr. 28, 2005) (holding that the <pfzer.com> domain name was confusingly similar to the complainant’s PFIZER mark, as the respondent simply omitted the letter “i”). Respondent adds letters to Complainant’s TIME WARNER CABLE mark in its <timewardnercable.com>, <timewarnbercable.com>, <timewarnercablec.com>, <timewarnercabloe.com>, <timewarnercablre.com>, <timewarnercabvle.com>, <timewarnercacble.com>, <timewarnercavble.com>, <timewarnercsable.com>, <timewarnercvable.com>, <timewarnercxable.com>, <timewarnerxcable.com>, <timewarnetrcable.com>, <timewatrnercable.com>, <timewsarnercable.com>, <itimewarnercable.com>, <wwwtimeswarnercable.com>, <timecwarnercable.com>, <timerswarnercable.com>, <timevwarnercable.com>, <timeqwarnercable.com>, <timewarnervcable.com>, <timewarnercabkle.com>, <timewarnercabole.com>, <timewarnercabnle.com>, <timeswarnecable.com>, and <timerwarnecable.com> domain names. The addition of extra letters to Complainant’s TIME WARNER CABLE mark does not negate a finding of confusing similarity pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Valpak Direct Mktg. Sys., Inc. v. Manila Indus., Inc., D2006-0714 (WIPO Aug. 17, 2006) (finding the <vallpak.com> domain name to be confusingly similar to the VALPAK mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)). Respondent substitutes one letter for another in Complainant’s TIME WARNER CABLE mark in forming the <timewarnercabla.com>, <timewarnercabli.com>, <timewarnercabre.com>, <timewarnercaple.com>, <timewarnerceble.com>, <timewarnercoble.com>, <timewarnercqble.com>, <timewarnerfable.com>, <timewarnerkable.com>, <timewarnersable.com>, <timewarnertable.com>, <timewarrercable.com>, <timewirnercable.com>, <timewarnercaber.com>, and <timewarnercablo.com> domain names. Respondent’s substitution of letters in Complainant’s TIME WARNER CABLE mark does not differentiate its domain names from Complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Belkin Components v. Gallant, FA 97075 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 29, 2001) (finding the <belken.com> domain name confusingly similar to the complainant's BELKIN mark because the name merely replaced the letter “i” in the complainant's mark with the letter “e”). Respondent adds the prefix “www” to Complainant’s TIME WARNER CABLE mark in its <wwwwtimewarnercable.com>, <wwwtimewarnecable.com>, and <wwwtimeswarnercable.com> domain names. The addition of the prefix “www” to its domain names does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Bank of Am. Corp. v. InterMos, FA 95092 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 1, 2000) (finding that the respondent’s domain name <wwwbankofamerica.com> is confusingly similar to the complainant’s registered trademark BANK OF AMERICA because it “takes advantage of a typing error (eliminating the period between the www and the domain name) that users commonly make when searching on the Internet”). Respondent adds the generic terms “http” and “special” to Complainant’s TIME WARNER CABLE mark in its <httptimewarnercable.com> and <timewanercablespecial.com> domain names. The addition of generic terms to a mark does not distinguish Respondent’s domain name from Complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Westfield Corp. v. Hobbs, D2000-0227 (WIPO May 18, 2000) (finding the <westfieldshopping.com> domain name confusingly similar because the WESTFIELD mark was the dominant element). Further, Respondent transposes the letters “t” and “i” in Complainant’s TIME WARNER CABLE MARK in its <itmewarnercable.com> domain name. Respondent’s transposition of letters does not avoid a finding of confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Google Inc. v. Jon G., FA 106084 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 26, 2002) (finding <googel.com> to be confusingly similar to the complainant’s GOOGLE mark and noting that “[t]he transposition of two letters does not create a distinct mark capable of overcoming a claim of confusing similarity, as the result reflects a very probable typographical error”). Respondent’s removes the spaces in Complainant’s TIME WARNER CABLE mark for its domain names and adds the gTLD “.com” to its domain names. The omission of spaces and addition of gTLDs to its domain name is inconsequential to a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) determination. See U.S. News & World Report, Inc. v. Zhongqi, FA 917070 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 9, 2007) (“Elimination of punctuation and the space between the words of Complainant’s mark, as well as the addition of a gTLD does not sufficiently distinguish the disputed domain name from the mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”). Thus, the Panel finds that Respondent’s <timewanecable.com>, <timewanercablespecial.com>, <timewardnercable.com>, <timewarmecable.com>, <timewarnbercable.com>, <timewarnercabla.com>, <timewarnercablec.com>, <timewarnercabli.com>, <timewarnercabloe.com>, <timewarnercablre.com>, <timewarnercabre.com>, <timewarnercabvle.com>, <timewarnercacble.com>, <timewarnercaple.com>, <timewarnercavble.com>, <timewarnerceble.com>, <timewarnercoble.com>, <timewarnercqble.com>, <timewarnercsable.com>, <timewarnercvable.com>, <timewarnercxable.com>, <timewarnerfable.com>, <timewarnerkable.com>, <timewarnersable.com>, <timewarnertable.com>, <timewarnerxcable.com>, <timewarnetrcable.com>, <timewarrercable.com>, <timewatrnercable.com>, <timewirnercable.com>, <timewsarnercable.com>, <httptimewarnercable.com>, <itimewarnercable.com>, <wwwtimewarnecable.com>, <wwwtimeswarnercable.com>, <timecwarnercable.com>, <timerswarnercable.com>, <timevwarnercable.com>, <timerwarnecable.com>, <timeswarnecable.com>, <wwwwtimewarnercable.com>, <itmewarnercable.com>, <timewarnercaber.com>, <timeqwarnercable.com>, <timewarnervcable.com>, <timewarnercablo.com>, <timewarnercabkle.com>, <timewarnercabole.com>, and <timewarnercabnle.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s TIME WARNER CABLE mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been established.
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 (Nat. Arb. 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 (Nat. Arb. 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.”).
Respondent is not commonly known by any of the TIME WARNER marks and is not licensed or authorized to use the TIME WARNER marks. The WHOIS record identifies “Zhichao Yang” as the registrant of the disputed domain names. In Braun Corp. v. Loney, FA 699652 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 7, 2006), the panel concluded 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. Therefore, Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
Respondent is using the disputed domains with commercial websites that promote, among other things, many of Complainant’s competitors’ services. All of Respondent’s disputed domain names link to websites displaying hyperlinks titled “Time Warner Cable TV,” “TWC Cable Services,” “Milwaukee Cable,” and others, which may be considered in direct competition with Complainant. Prior panels have concluded that a respondent’s domain names were not used for a bona fide offering of goods and services under Policy 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy 4(c)(iii) where they were used to provide links to various third-party competitors. See H-D Michigan Inc. v. Buell, FA 1106640 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 2, 2008) (finding that, because the “[r]espondent’s disputed domain names resolve to a website featuring a series of advertising links to various third-parties, many of whom offer products and services in direct competition with those offered under [the complainant’s] mark,” the respondent is not using the disputed domain names for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use). Thus, the Panel concludes that Respondent is not using the disputed domain names in connection with a Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) bona fide offering of goods and services or a Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) legitimate noncommercial or fair use.
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been established.
In addition to the 50 domain names at issue in this dispute, Respondent has been ordered to transfer infringing domain names in at least eleven other UDRP disputes since October 2012. Nationstar Mortgage LLC v. Zhichao Yang, FA 1450754 (Nat. Arb. Forum October 10, 2012); State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Zhichao Yang, FA 1461251 (Nat. Arb. Forum October 16, 2012); Redcats USA v. Zhichao Yang, FA 1462454 (Nat. Arb. Forum October 10, 2012). Respondent has violated Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii) by engaging in a pattern of cybersquatting. Respondent’s prior UDRP proceedings resulting in findings of bad faith findings and transfers of the subject domain names evidences bad faith use and registration of the disputed domain names under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). See TRAVELOCITY.COM LP v. Aziz, FA 1260783 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 16, 2009) (“These previous [UDRP] decisions demonstrate a pattern of bad faith registration and use of domain names under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii).”).
Respondent has used, and continues to use, the disputed domains with commercial websites that include links to third-party sites that, in many cases, provide services that compete with those provided by Complainant under its marks. Respondent is using the disputed domain names to provide hyperlinks to competing cable services. This commercial use of the domain names is likely to confuse and mislead consumers. In Compania Mexicana de Aviacion, S.A. de C.V. v. Bigfoot Ventures LLC, FA 1195961 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 14, 2008), the panel held that “Respondent’s disputed domain name resolved to a parking website which provided click through revenue to Respondent and which displayed links to travel-related products and services that directly competed with Complainant’s business. Accordingly, Respondent’s competing use of the disputed domain name was additional evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).” Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name to disrupt Complainant’s business, demonstrating bad faith use and registration under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).
Respondent is deemed to at least have had constructive knowledge of Complainant’s rights in its TIME WARNER marks by virtue of the federal trademark registrations that were in existence when Respondent registered the disputed domains. Respondent registered each of the infringing domain names after the TIME WARNER marks became famous. Additionally, it is inconceivable that Respondent did not have actual knowledge of Complainant when the disputed domains were registered. Based upon the fame of the TIME WARNER marks and Respondent’s use of the disputed domains with commercial websites that promote Complainant and its licensee’s competitors, Respondent cannot in good faith claim that it had no knowledge of Complainant’s rights in its famous TIME WARNER marks. Although some panels have concluded that constructive notice is not sufficient to support a finding of bad faith, this Panel finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of the mark and Complainant's rights. Thus, Respondent registered the disputed domain names in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See The Way Int'l, Inc. v. Diamond Peters, D2003-0264 (WIPO May 29, 2003) ("As to constructive knowledge, the Panel takes the view that there is no place for such a concept under the Policy."); see also Yahoo! Inc. v. Butler, FA 744444 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 17, 2006) (finding bad faith where the respondent was "well-aware of the complainant's YAHOO! mark at the time of registration).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been established.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <timewanecable.com>, <timewanercablespecial.com>, <timewardnercable.com>, <timewarmecable.com>, <timewarnbercable.com>, <timewarnercabla.com>, <timewarnercablec.com>, <timewarnercabli.com>, <timewarnercabloe.com>, <timewarnercablre.com>, <timewarnercabre.com>, <timewarnercabvle.com>, <timewarnercacble.com>, <timewarnercaple.com>, <timewarnercavble.com>, <timewarnerceble.com>, <timewarnercoble.com>, <timewarnercqble.com>, <timewarnercsable.com>, <timewarnercvable.com>, <timewarnercxable.com>, <timewarnerfable.com>, <timewarnerkable.com>, <timewarnersable.com>, <timewarnertable.com>, <timewarnerxcable.com>, <timewarnetrcable.com>, <timewarrercable.com>, <timewatrnercable.com>, <timewirnercable.com>, <timewsarnercable.com>, <httptimewarnercable.com>, <itimewarnercable.com>, <twcreward.com>, <wwwtimewarnecable.com>, <wwwtimeswarnercable.com>, <timecwarnercable.com>, <timerswarnercable.com>, <timevwarnercable.com>, <timerwarnecable.com>, <timeswarnecable.com>, <wwwwtimewarnercable.com>, <itmewarnercable.com>, <timewarnercaber.com>, <timeqwarnercable.com>, <timewarnervcable.com>, <timewarnercablo.com>, <timewarnercabkle.com>, <timewarnercabole.com>, and <timewarnercabnle.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
James A. Carmody, Esq., Panelist
Dated: June 28, 2013
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page