BBY Solutions, Inc. v. locca singh / Sikander / Sikander Verma / Fedor Nikolov / Anonymously
Claim Number: FA2001001878167
Complainant is BBY Solutions, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Matthew Mlsna, Minnesota, USA. Respondent is locca singh / Sikander / Sikander Verma / Fedor Nikolov / Anonymously (“Respondent”), India.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <geek-squads.net>, <geeksupportsquad.me>, <geeksquadtech.xyz>, and <techgeeksquad.org> registered with Namecheap, Inc., Hostinger, Uab, and 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 A. Einhorn appointed as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on January 8, 2020; the Forum received payment on January 8, 2020.
On January 9, 2020 Namecheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <geek-squads.net> domain name is registered with Namecheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the domain names; on January 10, 2020, Hostinger, Uab and Godaddy.Com, Llc confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <geeksupportsquad.me>, <geeksquadtech.xyz>, and <techgeeksquad.org> domain names are registered with Hostinger, Uab and Godaddy.Com, Llc and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Namecheap, Inc., Hostinger, Uab, and Godaddy.Com, Llc have verified that Respondent is bound by the Namecheap, Inc., Hostinger, Uab, and Godaddy.Com, Llc registration agreements 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 14, 2020, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 3, 2020 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@geek-squads.net, postmaster@geeksupportsquad.me, postmaster@geeksquadtech.xyz, postmaster@techgeeksquad.org. Also on January 14, 2020, 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 February 7, 2020, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed David A. Einhorn 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.
PRELIMINARY ISSUE: MULTIPLE RESPONDENTS
In the instant proceedings, Complainant has alleged that the entities which control the domain names at issue are effectively controlled by the same person and/or entity, which is operating under several aliases. Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”) provides that a “complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder.”
Complainant contends that the disputed domain names have common features such as similar resolving webpages, registrant information such as names, email addresses, and addresses. They also allegedly have in common the registrars of the domain names and/or IP addresses associated with the domain names.
The Panel finds that Complainant has sufficiently presented evidence demonstrating that the listed entities are jointly controlled.
A. Complainant
Complainant, BBY Solutions, Inc., offers services in connection with computer installation, maintenance, and repair and design. Complainant has rights in the GEEK SQUAD mark based upon its registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g. Reg. No. 2,744,658, registered July 29, 2003). Respondent’s <geek-squads.net>, <geeksupportsquad.me>, <geeksquadtech.xyz>, and <techgeeksquad.org> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s GEEK SQUAD mark, as the domain name incorporates Complainant’s mark in its entirety, merely adding a hyphen or the descriptive terms “support” and “tech” along with the “.net.” “.me.” “.xyz,” and “.org” top-level domains.
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <geek-squads.net>, <geeksupportsquad.me>, <geeksquadtech.xyz>, and <techgeeksquad.org> domain names. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Complainant authorized or licensed Respondent to use the GEEK SQUAD mark in any manner. Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name does not amount to a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, Respondent attempts to divert users seeking Complainant’s website and offering services that are identical to those offered by Complainant.
Respondent registered and is using the <geek-squads.net>, <geeksupportsquad.me>, <geeksquadtech.xyz>, and <techgeeksquad.org> domain names in bad faith. Respondent’s use of the disputed domain names with Complainant’s marks creates a likelihood of confusion for commercial gain. Further, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the GEEK SQUAD mark.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. The Panel notes that Respondent registered the disputed domain names on the following dates: <geek-squads.net> on February 9, 2019; <geeksupportsquad.me> on September 3, 2019; <geeksquadtech.xyz> on November 26, 2019; and <techgeeksquad.org> on October 27, 2019.
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 set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at ¶ 4.3; see also 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 claims rights in the GEEK SQUAD mark based upon registration of the mark with the USPTO (e.g. Reg. No. 2,744,658, registered July 29, 2003). Registration of a mark with the USPTO is sufficient to establish rights in that mark. See Home Depot Product Authority, LLC v. Samy Yosef / Express Transporting, FA 1738124 (Forum July 28, 2017) (finding that registration with the USPTO was sufficient to establish the complainant’s rights in the HOME DEPOT mark). The Panel therefore holds that Complainant’s registration of the GEEK SQUAD mark with the USPTO is sufficient to establish rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant next argues that Respondent’s <geek-squads.net>, <geeksupportsquad.me>, <geeksquadtech.xyz>, and <techgeeksquad.org> domain names are confusingly similar to the GEEK SQUAD mark, because the disputed domain names incorporate a hyphen and descriptive terms. The Panel notes that while Complainant does not argue this, Respondent also adds a letter to one of the disputed domain names. Such changes are not sufficient to distinguish a domain name from an incorporated mark in a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis. See The Toronto-Dominion Bank v. George Whitehead, FA 1784412 (Forum June 11, 2018) (“[S]light differences between domain names and registered marks, such as the addition of words that describe the goods or services in connection with the mark and gTLDs, do not distinguish the domain name from the mark incorporated therein per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”); see also Innomed Techs., Inc. v. DRP Servs., FA 221171 (Forum Feb. 18, 2004) (finding that hyphens and top-level domains are irrelevant for purposes of the Policy); see also ModCloth, Inc. v. James McAvoy, FA 1629102 (Forum Aug. 16, 2015) (“The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark because it differs from Complainant’s mark by merely adding the letter ‘L’ . . . ”). Here, Respondent wholly incorporates the GEEK SQUAD mark in each disputed domain name and adds the descriptive term “tech” to the <geeksquadtech.xyz> and <techgeeksquad.org> domain names, a hyphen and letter “s” to the <geek-squads.net> domain name, and the descriptive term “support” to the <geeksupportsquad.me> domain name.
The Panel therefore determines that the <geek-squads.net>, <geeksupportsquad.me>, <geeksquadtech.xyz>, and <techgeeksquad.org> domain names are confusingly similar to the GEEK SQUAD mark per Policy ¶4(a)(i).
Complainant argues that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <geek-squads.net>, <geeksupportsquad.me>, <geeksquadtech.xyz>, and <techgeeksquad.org> domain names, as Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Complainant authorized Respondent to use the GEEK SQUAD mark in any way. Where a response is lacking, WHOIS information can support a finding that the respondent is not commonly known by a disputed domain name. See Philip Morris USA Inc. v. Usama Ramzan, FA 1737750 (Forum July 26, 2017) (“We begin by noting that Complainant contends, and Respondent does not deny, that Respondent has not been commonly known by the <marlborocoupon.us> domain name, and that Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use the MARLBORO mark in any way. Moreover, the pertinent WHOIS information identifies the registrant of the domain name only as “Usama Ramzan,” which does not resemble the domain name. On this record, we conclude that Respondent has not been commonly known by the challenged domain name so as to have acquired rights to or legitimate interests in it within the purview of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).”). The WHOIS information of record identifies the registrant of the at-issue domain name as “locca singh / Sikander / Sikander Verma / Fedor Nikolov / Anonymously,” and no information on the record indicates Respondent was authorized to use Complainant’s mark or was commonly known by the disputed domain name. The Panel therefore finds under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) that Respondent has not been commonly known by the disputed domain names.
Next, Complainant argues that Respondent attempts to divert users seeking Complainant’s website and offering services that are identical to those offered by Complainant. Using a disputed domain name to intentionally divert Internet users from a complainant’s website and offer competing products does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Invesco Ltd. v. Premanshu Rana, FA 1733167 (Forum July 10, 2017) (“Use of a domain name to divert Internet users to a competing website is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.”). Here, Complainant provides screenshots of the disputed domain names’ resolving webpage which all appear similar and offer services that are identical to the services offered by Complainant. Therefore, the Panel determines that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <geek-squads.net>, <geeksupportsquad.me>, <geeksquadtech.xyz>, and <techgeeksquad.org> domain names.
Therefore, Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶¶ 4(a)(ii).
Complainant claims that Respondent’s use of the <geek-squads.net>, <geeksupportsquad.me>, <geeksquadtech.xyz>, and <techgeeksquad.org> domain names to pass off as Complainant in order to compete with Complainant’s business demonstrates that Respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith. Use of a domain name to create a false impression of affiliation with a complainant in order to compete with and disrupt the complainant’s business is behavior indicative of bad faith registration and use per Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv). See Fitness International, LLC v. ALISTAIR SWODECK / VICTOR AND MURRAY, FA1623644 (Forum July 9, 2015) (“Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to operate a website that purports to offer health club related services such as fitness experts, fitness models, fitness venues, exercise programs, and personal training, all of which are the exact services offered by Complainant. Doing so causes customer confusion, disrupts Complainant’s business, and demonstrates Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).”); see also Am. Int’l Group, Inc. v. Busby, FA 156251 (Forum May 30, 2003) (finding that the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith where the respondent hosted a website that “duplicated Complainant’s mark and logo, giving every appearance of being associated or affiliated with Complainant’s business . . . to perpetrate a fraud upon individual shareholders who respected the goodwill surrounding the AIG mark”); Citadel LLC and its related entity, KCG IP Holdings, LLC v. Joel Lespinasse / Radius Group, FA1579141 (Forum Oct. 15, 2014) (“Here, the Panel finds evidence of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) bad faith as Respondent has used the confusingly similar domain name to promote its own financial management and consulting services in competition with Complainant.”). Complainant claims that the at-issue domain name resolves to a website upon which Respondent displays Complainant’s mark and offers services that directly compete with the services offered by Complainant. Respondent has not disputed this contention. The Panel therefore finds that Respondent registered and used the domain names in bad faith per Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and/or (iv).
Thus, Complainant has also satisfied Policy ¶¶ 4(a)(iii).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <geek-squads.net>, <geeksupportsquad.me>, <geeksquadtech.xyz>, and <techgeeksquad.org> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
David A. Einhorn, Panelist
Dated: February 20, 2020
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page