Spark Networks Services GmbH v. sagar reddy / sagar koushik
Claim Number: FA2004001892654
Complainant is Spark Networks Services GmbH (“Complainant”), represented by Fabricio Vayra of Perkins Coie LLP, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is sagar reddy / sagar koushik (“Respondent”), India.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <elitesingles-login.com>, <elitesinglescanada.com>, and <elitesinglesaustralia.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 A. Einhorn appointed as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on April 17, 2020; the Forum received payment on April 17, 2020.
On April 21, 2020, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <elitesingles-login.com>, <elitesinglescanada.com>, and <elitesinglesaustralia.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 April 28, 2020, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of May 18, 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@elitesingles-login.com, postmaster@elitesinglescanada.com, postmaster@elitesinglesaustralia.com. Also on April 28, 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 May 26, 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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant, Spark Networks Services GmbH, is a global dating company with a portfolio of premium and free dating apps. Complainant has rights in the ELITE SINGLES mark based on registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 4,973,501, registered June 7, 2016). Respondent’s <elitesingles-login.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ELITE SINGLES mark as it contains the mark in its entirety, merely adding a hyphen and, the generic word “login.” Respondent’s <elitesinglescanada.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ELITE SINGLES mark as it incorporates the mark in its entirety, merely adding the geographic term “canada.” Respondent’s <elitesinglesaustralia.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ELITE SINGLES mark as it incorporates the mark in its entirety, merely adding the geographic term “australia.”
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <elitesingles-login.com>, <elitesinglescanada.com>, and <elitesinglesaustralia.com> domain names. Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant’s ELITE SINGLES mark and is not commonly known by the disputed domain names. Additionally, Respondent fails to use the disputed domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, the registrant of the disputed domain names attempts to pass off as Complainant in order to redirect Internet users to a third-party website referring to a competitive dating platform. Additionally, Respondent was aware of Complainant’s rights in the ELITE SINGLES mark at the time of registration.
Respondent registered and uses the <elitesingles-login.com>, <elitesinglescanada.com>, and <elitesinglesaustralia.com> domain names in bad faith. Respondent has engaged in a pattern of bad faith registration. Respondent attempts to disrupt Complainant’s business and divert Internet customers seeking Complainant to Respondent’s website for Respondent’s commercial gain. In addition, Respondent’s registration and use indicate actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the ELITE SINGLES mark.
B. Respondent
Respondent did not submit a response. The Panel notes that the <elitesingles-login.com> was registered on August 5, 2019, and the <elitesinglescanada.com> and <elitesinglesaustralia.com> domain names were registered on August 21, 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 has rights in the ELITE SINGLES mark based upon the registration of the mark with the USPTO. Registration of a mark with the USPTO is sufficient to establish rights in that mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). 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). Complainant provides a copy of its USPTO registration for the ELITE SINGLES mark (e.g., Reg. No. 4,973,501, registered June 7, 2016). The Panel therefore finds that Complainant’s registration of the ELITE SINGLES mark with the USPTO establishes rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant argues that Respondent’s domain name <elitesingles-login.com>, is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ELITE SINGLES mark as it contains the mark in its entirety and adds a hyphen and the generic word “login.” Complainant argues that Respondent’s <elitesinglescanada.com> and <elitesinglesaustralia.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s ELITE SINGLES mark as they contain the mark in its entirety and add either the geographic term “canada” or “australia.” Such changes are not sufficient to distinguish a disputed domain name from an incorporated mark in a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis. See Blizzard Entertainment, Inc. v. XINXIU ZENG / haimin liang, FA 1736365 (Forum July 19, 2017) (finding that the addition of punctuation—specifically, a hyphen—did not sufficiently distinguish the disputed domain name from complainant’s registered mark); see also Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) (“Where a relevant trademark is recognizable within a disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element.”). The Panel therefore determines that the <elitesingles-login.com>, <elitesinglescanada.com>, and <elitesinglesaustralia.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s ELITE SINGLES mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant argues Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in <elitesingles-login.com>, <elitesinglescanada.com>, nor <elitesinglesaustralia.com> since Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names, nor has Complainant authorized Respondent to use the ELITE SINGLES mark in any way. Where a response is lacking, WHOIS information can be used to support a finding that a Respondent is not commonly known by a disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). 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 for the <elitesingles-login.com> domain name identifies the registrant as “sagar reddy,” and no information on the record indicates Respondent is known otherwise or that it is authorized to register a domain name incorporating Complainant’s ELITE SINGLES mark. The WHOIS information of record for the <elitesinglescanada.com> and <elitesinglesaustralia.com> domain names identifies the registrant as “sagar koushik,” and no information on the record indicates Respondent is known otherwise or that it is authorized to register a domain name incorporating Complainant’s ELITE SINGLES mark. Complainant contends that although there is some variation in the registrant information for each of the disputed domain names, there are enough points of similarity between the registrant information and the associated websites to conclude that there is common ownership of all three domains. Complainant offers the following evidence: the disputed domains share the same registrant contact information, the same domain naming pattern, the same resolving-website layout, the same customer service number is listed across the websites, the same customer service chat message appears when users navigate to the websites, and the resolving websites are all nearly identical. The Panel therefore finds under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) that Respondent has not been commonly known by the <elitesingles-login.com>, <elitesinglescanada.com>, nor <elitesinglesaustralia.com> domain names.
Complainant contends that Respondent failed to use <elitesingles-login.com>, <elitesinglescanada.com>, and <elitesinglesaustralia.com> domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, the disputed domain names resolve to webpages that redirect Internet users to a third-party website featuring a third-party dating platform, in direct competition with Complainant’s business. Use of a disputed domain name to redirect users to a different website in direct competition with a complainant’s business supports a finding that a respondent has not used a domain for a bona fide offering or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (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.”). Complainant provides screenshots of the websites that resolve from the <elitesingles-login.com>, <elitesinglescanada.com>, and <elitesinglesaustralia.com> domain names in which Respondent displays the ELITE SINGLES mark in the website headers, which Complainant contends shows that Respondent is attempting to pass off as Complainant. Complainant asserts that these resolving websites are configured to redirect to a third party app. For example, when a user clicks on “Sign Up Now,” users are redirected to a webpage at <millionairematch.com> domain name, and when a user clicks on Google Play link, the user is redirected to the Millionaire Match app on Google Play. The Panel therefore finds that Respondent failed to use the <elitesingles-login.com>, <elitesinglescanada.com>, and <elitesinglesaustralia.com> domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(ii) & (iii).
Thus, Complainant has also satisfied Policy ¶¶ 4(a)(ii).
Complainant contends that Respondent engages in a pattern of bad faith use and registration because Respondent registered the <elitesingles-login.com>, <elitesinglescanada.com>, and <elitesinglesaustralia.com> domain names. Multiple registrations of domain names using a complainant’s mark may constitute bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). See Microsoft Corporation and Skype v. zhong biao zhang / Unknown company / zhong zhang, FA 1538218 (Forum Feb. 20, 2014) (holding that the respondent’s registration of three domain names incorporating variants of the complainant’s SKYPE mark reflected a pattern of bad faith registration under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii)). The Panel agrees that Respondent has multiple domains in the instant case and thus engages in a pattern of bad faith registration and use per Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii).
Further, the Panel finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the mark prior to registering the disputed domain name, which is adequate evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). Complainant asserts that Respondent’s use of the identical ELITE SINGLES mark in its domain names and on its resolving webpages, along with Respondent’s use of the disputed domain names’ resolving websites to redirect to a third-party website in competition with Complainant indicate it had actual knowledge of Complainant’s business and rights in the mark. The Panel agrees that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the ELITE SINGLES mark and thus registered the <elitesingles-login.com>, <elitesinglescanada.com>, and <elitesinglesaustralia.com> domain names in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Therefore, 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 <elitesingles-login.com>, <elitesinglescanada.com>, and <elitesinglesaustralia.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
David A. Einhorn, Panelist
Dated: June 9, 2020
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page