PayPal, Inc. v. jiang wang / shucai lashi
Claim Number: FA2206001999990
Complainant is PayPal, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Karen A. Webb of Fenwick & West LLP, California, USA. Respondent is jiang wang / shucai lashi (“Respondent”), China.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <paypalinvest.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.
PANEL
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.
Alan L. Limbury, as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on June 10, 2022. The Forum received payment on June 10, 2022.
On June 15, 2022, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <paypalinvest.com> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. 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 June 22, 2022, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 12, 2022, 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@paypalinvest.com. Also on June 22, 2022, 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 July 14, 2022, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Alan L. Limbury 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, PayPal, Inc., is a leading global online payment company. Complainant has rights in the PAYPAL mark through multiple trademark registrations, including with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”). Respondent’s <paypalinvest.com> domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s PAYPAL mark.
Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <paypalinvest.com> domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name, nor has Complainant authorized or licensed Respondent to use its PAYPAL mark in the domain name. Respondent does not use the domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, but instead displays adult-oriented material and pay-per-click advertisements.
Respondent registered the <paypalinvest.com> domain name in opportunistic bad faith and with actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the PAYPAL mark.
Respondent uses the domain name in bad faith to offer pay-per-click advertisements for commercial gain while displaying adult-oriented material. Respondent has a pattern of bad faith registration and use. Respondent has been involved in at least one prior proceeding under the Policy in which a panel found that the Respondent had engaged in bad faith registration of a domain name, in nearly identical circumstances, where Respondent had used a domain name containing the complainant’s trademark to resolve to a webpage with pay-per-click advertising for pornographic websites. See Chicago Mercantile Exchange Inc. and CME Group Inc. v. jiang wang, Case No. D2020-3427 (WIPO March 9, 2021). Respondent has registered at least 210 domain names under the name “jiang wang,” and at least 208 domain names under organization name “shucai lashi,” some of which resolve to websites that contain pornographic content, and some that are blocked as security threats.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant has established all the elements entitling it to relief.
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 shown that it has rights in the PAYPAL mark through multiple trademark registrations, including with the USPTO (e.g. Reg. No. 2,646,490, registered on November 5, 2002). The Panel finds Respondent’s <paypalinvest.com> domain name to be confusingly similar to Complainant’s PAYPAL mark as it incorporates the mark in its entirety while adding the descriptive or generic term “invest”, which is insufficient to distinguish the domain name from the mark, and the inconsequential “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”), which may be ignored.
Complainant has established this element.
(i) before any notice to Respondent of the dispute, the use by Respondent of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or
(ii) Respondent (as an individual, business or other organization) has been commonly known by the domain name, even if Respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
(iii) Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert customers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.
The <paypalinvest.com> domain name was registered on August 4, 2018, many years after Complainant has shown that its PAYPAL mark had become very well-known around the world. It resolves to a website that displays numerous pay-per-click advertisements that show pornographic images.
These circumstances, together with Complainant’s assertions, are sufficient to constitute a prima facie showing of absence of rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name on the part of Respondent. The evidentiary burden therefore shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the <paypalinvest.com> domain name. See JUUL Labs, Inc. v. Dryx Emerson / KMF Events LTD, FA1906001849706 (Forum July 17, 2019).
Respondent has made no attempt to do so.
The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name.
Complainant has established this element.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out four illustrative circumstances, which, though not exclusive, shall be evidence of the registration and use of the domain name in bad faith for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, including:
(iv) by using the domain name, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on its website or location.
The circumstances set out above in relation to the second element satisfy the Panel that Respondent was fully aware of Complainant’s very well-known PAYPAL mark when Respondent registered the <paypalinvest.com> domain name and that Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark as to the source of Respondent’s website and of the services promoted on that website. This demonstrates registration and use in bad faith to attract users for commercial gain under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
Complainant has also shown that Respondent has a history of registering domain names that incorporate well-known and famous trademarks.
Complainant has established this element.
DECISION
Complainant having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <paypalinvest.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Alan L. Limbury, Panelist
Dated: July 15, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page