Micro Electronics, Inc. v. gamini jayasingha / ecl it solutions
Claim Number: FA1904001837497
Complainant is Micro Electronics, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by David A. Einhorn of Scarinci Hollenbeck LLC, New York, United States. Respondent is gamini jayasingha / ecl it solutions (“Respondent”), California, United States.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <microcenteroc.com>, registered with Wild West Domains, LLC.
The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially, and, to the best of his knowledge, has no conflict of interests in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Terry F. Peppard as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on April 4, 2019; the Forum received payment on April 4, 2019.
On April 5, 2019, Wild West Domains, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <microcenteroc.com> domain name is registered with Wild West Domains, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Wild West Domains, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Wild West Domains, 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 April 8, 2019, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 29, 2019 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@microcenteroc.com. Also, on April 8, 2019, 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 Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On May 1, 2019, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Terry F. Peppard as sole Panelist in this proceeding.
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 a response from Respondent.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant is in the business of selling, under the MICRO CENTER mark, computers, electronic hardware and software related to computing, networking and gaming throughout the United States both online and in retail stores.
Complainant holds a registration for the MICRO CENTER service mark, which is on file with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) as Registry No. 4,747,365, registered June 2, 2015.
Respondent registered the domain name <microcenteroc.com> on or about April 18, 2017.
The domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s MICRO CENTER service mark.
Respondent has not been commonly known by the domain name.
Complainant never authorized Respondent to use the MICRO CENTER mark in any domain name.
The domain name resolves to a website that offers for sale products and services that compete with the business of Complainant.
Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name.
Respondent registered and uses the domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
(1) the domain name registered by Respondent is confusingly similar to a service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
(2) Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(3) the same domain name was registered and is being used by Respondent 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:
ii. Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
iii. the domain name has been registered and is being used by Respondent in bad faith.
In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel will, pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules, decide this proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations, and, pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, draw such inferences as it deems appropriate. The Panel is entitled to accept as true all reasonable allegations and inferences set out in the Complaint unless the evidence is clearly contradictory. See Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Forum July 31, 2000) (finding that a respondent’s failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of a UDRP complaint to be deemed true). See also Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009 (WIPO February 29, 2000): “In the absence of a response, it is appropriate to accept as true all allegations of the Complaint.”
But see eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003): “Because Complainant did not produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations [. . .] the Panel finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint”).
Complainant has rights in the MICRO CENTER service mark sufficient for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) by virtue of its registration of the mark with a national trademark authority, the USPTO. See, for example, BGK Trademark Holdings, LLC & Beyoncé Giselle Knowles-Carter v. Chanphut, FA 1626334 (Forum August 3, 2015) (finding that a UDRP complainant’s registration with the USPTO (or any other governmental authority) adequately proved its rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)).
Turning to the central question posed by Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), we conclude from a review of the record that Respondent’s <microcenteroc.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s MICRO CENTER service mark. The domain name contains the mark in its entirety, with only the addition of the geographical term “oc,” an abbreviation for California’s “Orange County,” where Complainant operates, plus the generic Top Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com.” These alterations of the mark, made in forming the domain name, do not save it from the realm of confusing similarity under the standards of the Policy. See Doosan Corporation v. philippe champain, FA 1636675 (Forum October 13, 2015) (finding that geographic designations or terms descriptive of a UDRP complainant’s business operations do not remove a domain name from the realm of confusing similarity). See also Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association v. Shi Lei aka Shilei, FA 1784643 (Forum June 18, 2018):
A TLD (whether a gTLD, sTLD or ccTLD) is disregarded under a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis because domain name syntax requires TLDs.
Under Policy 4(a)(ii), Complainant must make out a prima facie showing that Respondent lacks rights to and legitimate interests in the <microcenteroc.com> domain name, whereupon the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have such rights or interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum August 18, 2006) (finding that a UDRP complainant must make a prima facie case that a respondent lacks rights to or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name under UDRP¶4(a)(ii) before the burden shifts to that respondent to show that it does have such rights or interests). See also AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Forum September 25, 2006):
Complainant must … 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, … the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain names.
Complainant has made a sufficient prima facie showing under this head of the Policy. Respondent’s failure to respond to the Complaint therefore permits us to infer that Respondent does not have rights to or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. See Desotec N.V. v. Jacobi Carbons AB, D2000-1398 (WIPO December 21, 2000) (finding that a respondent’s failure to respond to a UDRP complaint allows a presumption that a complainant’s allegations are true unless they are clearly contradicted by the evidence). Nonetheless, we will examine the record before us, in light of the several considerations set out in Policy ¶ 4(c) (i)-(iii), to determine whether there is in it any basis for concluding that Respondent has rights to or legitimate interests in the contested domain name that are cognizable under the Policy.
We begin by noting that Complainant contends, and Respondent does not deny, that Respondent has not been commonly known by the <microcenteroc.com> domain name, and that Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use the MICRO CENTER service mark in any domain name. Moreover, the pertinent WHOIS information identifies the registrant of the domain name only as “gamini jayasingha / ecl it solutions,” which does not resemble the domain name. On this record, we conclude that Respondent has not been commonly known by the disputed domain name so as to have acquired rights to or legitimate interests in it within the ambit of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See, for example, Google LLC v. Bhawana Chandel / Admission Virus, FA 1799694 (Forum September 4, 2018) (concluding that a respondent was not commonly known by a disputed domain name where the relevant WHOIS record identified that respondent as “Bhawana Chandel,” and nothing in the record showed that that respondent was authorized to use a UDRP Complainant’s mark in any manner). See also Navistar International Corporation v. N Rahmany, FA 620789 (Forum June 8, 2015) (finding, under Policy ¶4(c)(ii), that a respondent was not commonly known by a disputed domain name where a UDRP complainant had not authorized that respondent to incorporate its mark in a domain name).
We next observe that Complainant asserts, without objection from Respondent, that the <microcenteroc.com> domain name resolves to a website that offers for sale products and services that compete with the business of Complainant. In the circumstances here presented, we may presume that Respondent profits from this employment of the domain name. This use is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services by means of the domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of it under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) such as would confirm in Respondent rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name as provided in those subsections of the Policy. See General Motors LLC v. MIKE LEE, FA 1659965 (Forum March 10, 2016):
[U]se of a domain [name] to sell products and/or services that compete directly with a [UDRP] complainant’s business does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).
The Panel therefore finds that Complainant has satisfied the proof requirements of Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
We are persuaded by the evidence that Respondent’s use of the challenged <microcenteroc.com> domain name, as alleged in the Complaint, disrupts Complainant’s business. Under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii), this stands as proof of Respondent’s bad faith in registering and using the domain name. See, for example, Health Republic Insurance Company v. Above.com Legal, FA1506001622088 (Forum July 10, 2015):
The use of a domain name’s resolving website to host links to competitors of a complainant shows intent to disrupt that complainant’s business, thereby showing bad faith in use and registration under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).
We are also convinced by the evidence that Respondent employs the contested
<microcenteroc.com> domain name, which we have found to be confusingly similar to Complainant’s MICRO CENTER service mark, to profit from the confusion thus caused among Internet users seeking Complainant’s legitimate website as to the possibility of Complainant’s association with the domain name. Under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv), this too demonstrates Respondent’s bad faith in registering and using the domain name. See Capital One Financial Corp. v. DN Manager / Whois-Privacy.Net Ltd, FA1615034 (Forum June 4, 2015) (finding that a respondent’s use of a disputed domain name to display links to the websites of a UDRP complainant’s commercial competitors showed bad faith registration and use of that domain name under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)). See also DatingDirect.com Ltd. v. Aston, FA 593977 (Forum December 28, 2005):
[T]he Panel finds the respondent is appropriating the complainant’s mark in a confusingly similar domain name for commercial gain, which is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
Finally, under this head of the Policy, it is plain from the record that Respondent knew of Complainant and its rights in the MICRO CENTER mark when it registered the offending <microcenteroc.com> domain name. This further illustrates Respondent’s bad faith in registering the domain name. See, for example, Immigration Equality v. Brent, FA 1103571 (Forum January 11, 2008):
That Respondent proceeded to register a domain name identical to, and with prior knowledge of[,] Complainant's mark is sufficient to prove bad faith registration … under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
The Panel thus finds that Complainant has met its obligations of proof under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Complainant having established all three elements required to be proven under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that the relief requested must be, and it is hereby, GRANTED. Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <microcenteroc.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Terry F. Peppard, Panelist
Dated: May 16, 2019
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page