Mediacom Communications Corporation v. Carolina Rodrigues
Claim Number: FA2210002015633
Complainant is Mediacom Communications Corporation (“Complainant”), represented by Robert M. Wasnofski, Jr. of Dentons US LLP, Illinois, USA. Respondent is Carolina Rodrigues (“Respondent”), Panama.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <mediacomcustomerservice.com>, registered with NameCheap, Inc..
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.
Richard Hill as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on October 11, 2022; Forum received payment on October 11, 2022.
On October 12, 2022, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <mediacomcustomerservice.com> domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameCheap, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameCheap, Inc. 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 October 13, 2022, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of November 2, 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@mediacomcustomerservice.com. Also on October 13, 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, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On November 7, 2022, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Richard Hill as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that 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, 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 states that it offers a number of services, including cable television transmission, high-speed Internet, and telephone services. Complainant is one of America’s largest cable television companies. Complainant offers its services to more than 1,500 communities across dozens of states throughout the United States. Complainant has rights in the MEDIACOM mark through its registration of the mark in the United States in 2002.
Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its mark as it incorporates the mark in its entirety and merely adds the descriptive term “customer service” and the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).
According to Complainant, Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name as Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name nor has Respondent been licensed, authorized, or otherwise permitted by Complainant to use Complainant’s mark. Furthermore, Respondent’s use is not a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent hosts competing hyperlinks on the resolving website.
Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith, as Respondent is attempting to attract Internet users for commercial gain. Respondent also failed to respond to Complainant’s cease and desist letters. Finally, Respondent had actual or constructive knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the mark at the time of registration. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant has registered trademarks for the mark MEDIACOM and uses it to provide a wide range of television and communication services. The mark was registered in 2002.
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark.
The disputed domain name was registered in 2021.
The resolving website displays hyperlinks to services that compete with those of Complainant.
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”).
The disputed domain name incorporates Respondent’s mark in its entirety and merely adds the descriptive term “customer service” and the “.com” gTLD. The mere addition of a descriptive word as well as a gTLD to an otherwise recognizable mark may not sufficiently distinguish a disputed domain name form a complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See 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.”). Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name: where a response is lacking, relevant WHOIS information can be used as evidence to show a respondent is or is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Chevron Intellectual Property LLC v. Fred Wallace, FA1506001626022 (Forum July 27, 2015) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <chevron-europe.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), as the WHOIS information named “Fred Wallace” as registrant of the disputed domain name). Here, the WHOIS of record identifies Respondent as “Carolina Rodrigues”. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
The resolving webpage displays links to services which compete with those offered by Complainant. Use of a disputed domain name to host competing hyperlinks may not be a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Ashley Furniture Industries, Inc. v. domain admin / private registrations aktien gesellschaft, FA1506001626253 (Forum July 29, 2015) (“Respondent is using the disputed domain name to resolve to a web page containing advertising links to products that compete with those of Complainant. The Panel finds that this does not constitute a bona fide offering or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.”). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). And the Panel finds that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the dispute domain name.
Respondent (who did not reply to Complainant’s contentions) has not presented any plausible explanation for its use of Complainant’s mark. In accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel shall draw such inferences from Respondent’s failure to reply as it considers appropriate. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent did not have a legitimate use in mind when registering the disputed domain name.
Indeed, as already noted, Respondent is attempting to attract Internet users for commercial gain by offering competing hyperlinks. Registration and use of a disputed domain name to attract internet users with competing hyperlinks for commercial gain can be evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Staples, Inc. and Staples the Office Superstores, LLC v. HANNA EL HIN / DTAPLES.COM, FA1404001557007 (Forum June 6, 2014) (“Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the <dtaples.com> domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) because the Respondent is using the disputed domain name to host third-party links to Complainant’s competitors from which Respondent is presumed to obtain some commercial benefit.”). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
The Panel notes, obiter dictum, that Respondent appears to have been found to have registered and used disputed domain names in bad faith in numerous cases, so it appears that Respondent may have engaged in a pattern of bad faith registration and use of domain names.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <mediacomcustomerservice.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Richard Hill, Panelist
Dated: November 8, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page