Charter Communications Holding Company, LLC v. UMAIR AHMAD
Claim Number: FA2303002036747
Complainant is Charter Communications Holding Company, LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Corsearch, Inc., Texas. Respondent is UMAIR AHMAD (“Respondent”), US.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <spectruminternetoffer.com>, registered with FastDomain 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.
Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on March 21, 2023; Forum received payment on March 21, 2023.
On March 22, 2023, FastDomain Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <spectruminternetoffer.com> domain name is registered with FastDomain Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. FastDomain Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the FastDomain 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 March 22, 2023, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 11, 2023 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@spectruminternetoffer.com. Also on March 22, 2023, 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 April 12, 2023, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Paul M. DeCicco 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 contends as follows:
Complainant, Charter Communications Holding Company, LLC, offers a wide range of communications and network services.
Complainant has rights in the SPECTRUM INTERNET mark through its registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”).
Respondent’s <spectruminternetoffer.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s SPECTRUM INTERNET mark as it only adds the term “offer” along with the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).
Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <spectruminternetoffer.com> domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name, nor has Complainant authorized or licensed Respondent to use its SPECTRUM INTERNET mark in a domain name. Respondent does not use the at-issue domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services, nor for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, but instead passes off as Complainant while diverting users to a website offering products that compete with Complainant offering for sale.
Respondent registered and uses the <spectruminternetoffer.com> domain name in bad faith. Respondent disrupts Complainant’s business while attracting users for commercial gain and creating a likelihood of confusion. Additionally, Respondent registered the at-issue domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the SPECTRUM INTERNET mark. Furthermore, Respondent may engage in phishing through an email address associated with the at-issue domain name.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant has trademark rights in SPECTRUM INTERNET.
Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and is not authorized to use the SPECTRUM INTERNET mark in any capacity.
Respondent registered the at‑issue domain name after Complainant acquired trademark rights in SPECTRUM INTERNET.
Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to address a website where Respondent poses as Complainant and offers products and services that compete with 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 at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.
Complainant’s registration of the SPECTRUM INTERNET mark with the USPTO demonstrates Complainant’s rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Haas Automation, Inc. v. Jim Fraser, FA 1627211 (Forum Aug. 4, 2015) (finding that Complainant’s USPTO registrations for the HAAS mark sufficiently demonstrate its rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)).
Furthermore, Respondent’s <spectruminternetoffer.com> domain name contains Complainant’s SPECTRUM INTERNET trademark less its space, followed by the suggestive term “offer,” and with all followed by the top-level domain “.com”. Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) the differences between Respondent’s domain name and Complainant’s trademark do nothing to distinguish one from the other. Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent’s <spectruminternetoffer.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s SPECTRUM INTERNET trademark. See Microsoft Corporation v. Thong Tran Thanh, FA 1653187 (Forum Jan. 21, 2016) (determining that confusing similarity exists where [a disputed domain name] contains Complainant’s entire mark and differs only by the addition of a generic or descriptive phrase and top-level domain, the differences between the domain name and its contained trademark are insufficient to differentiate one from the other for the purposes of the Policy).
Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006). Since Respondent failed to respond, Complainant’s prima facie showing acts conclusively.
Respondent lacks both rights and legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant’s trademark in any capacity and, as discussed below, there are no Policy ¶4(c) circumstances from which the Panel might find that Respondent has rights or interests in respect of the at‑issue domain name. See Navistar International Corporation v. N Rahmany, FA1505001620789 (Forum June 8, 2015) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name where the complainant had never authorized the respondent to incorporate its NAVISTAR mark in any domain name registration).
The WHOIS information for the at-issue domain name identifies the domain name’s registrant as “Umair Ahmad” and the record before the Panel contains no evidence tending to prove that Respondent is commonly known by the <spectruminternetoffer.com> domain name. The Panel therefore concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by the <spectruminternetoffer.com> domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See also, Radio Flyer Inc. v. er nong wu, FA 2011001919893 (Forum Dec. 16, 2020) (“Here, the WHOIS information lists “er nong wu” as the registrant and no information suggests Complainant has authorized Respondent to use the RADIO FLYER mark in any way. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).”).
Additionally, Respondent uses its <spectruminternetoffer.com> domain name to address a website that displays Complainant’s trademarks and offers products that compete with Complainant’s products. The website appears to be designed to give visitors the false impression that the website is affiliated with or authorized by Complainant, when it is not. Respondent’s use of the domain name in this manner suggests neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4 (c)(i), nor a non-commercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Dell Inc. v. Devesh Tyagi, FA 1785301 (Forum June 2, 2018) (“Respondent replicates Complainant’s website and displays Complainant’s products. The Panel finds that this use is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) & (iii).”); see also, Ripple Labs Inc. v. NGYEN NGOC PHUONG THAO, FA 1741737 (Forum Aug. 21, 2017) (“Respondent uses the [disputed] domain name to divert Internet users to Respondent’s website… confusing them into believing that some sort of affiliation exists between it and Complainant… [which] is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶4(c)(iii).”).
Given the forgoing, Complainant satisfies its initial burden and demonstrates Respondent’s lack of rights and lack of legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
The at-issue domain name was registered and used in bad faith. As discussed below without being exhaustive, there is sufficient evidence to allow the Panel to conclude that Respondent acted in bad faith pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
First, Respondent uses its confusingly similar domain name to direct internet traffic to Respondent’s <spectruminternetoffer.com> website where Respondent poses as Complainant and offers products for sale that compete with products offered under Complainant’s SPECTRUM INTERNET trademark. Such use of the domain name is disruptive to Complainant’s business and capitalizes on the confusion Respondent creates between Complainant’s trademark and Respondent’s domain name and associated website. Respondent thus registered and is using the at-issue domain name in bad faith pursuant Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Fitness International, LLC v. ALISTAIR SWODECK / VICTOR AND MURRAY, FA1506001623644 (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 Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Bonds, FA 873143 (Forum Feb. 16, 2007) (“The Panel finds such use to constitute bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv), because [r]espondent is taking advantage of the confusing similarity between the <metropolitanlife.us> domain name and Complainant’s METLIFE mark in order to profit from the goodwill associated with the mark.”); see also, Ripple Labs Inc. v. Jessie McKoy / Ripple Reserve Fund, FA 1790949 (Forum July 9, 2018) (finding bad faith per Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv) where the respondent used the disputed domain name to resolve to a website upon which the respondent passes off as the complainant and offers online cryptocurrency services in direct competition with the complainant’s business).
Moreover, Respondent registered the <spectruminternetoffer.com> domain name knowing that Complainant had trademark rights in SPECTRUM INTERNET. Respondent’s prior knowledge is evident from Respondent’s use of the confusingly similar domain name to offer competing goods on a website displaying Complainant’s trademarks. Respondent’s prior knowledge of Complainant's trademark further indicates that Respondent registered and used the <spectruminternetoffer.com> domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent had "actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name").
Finally, Complainant suggests that because the domain name maybe used to send and receive email since MX records are enabled, Respondent might make future use of email from <spectruminternetoffer.com> to engage in phishing. However, there is no evidence that Respondent has in fact sent any email from the <spectruminternetoffer.com> and so Respondent‘s future email phishing is speculative.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <spectruminternetoffer.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist
Dated: April 12, 2023
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page