Charter Communications Holding Company, LLC v. Kamran Sattar
Claim Number: FA2304002041807
Complainant is Charter Communications Holding Company, LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Julie Kent of Holland & Hart LLP, Colorado, USA. Respondent is Kamran Sattar (“Respondent”), Pakistan.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <spectrumdiscounts.store> and <spectrumbillingservice.online>, registered with NameCheap, Inc..
The undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on April 26, 2023; Forum received payment on April 26, 2023.
On April 26, 2023, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <spectrumdiscounts.store> and <spectrumbillingservice.online> domain names are registered with NameCheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. 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 April 28, 2023, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of May 18, 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@spectrumdiscounts.store, postmaster@spectrumbillingservice.online. Also on April 28, 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 May 23, 2023, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Sandra J. Franklin 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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
PRELIMINARY ISSUE: MULTIPLE RESPONDENTS
Complainant alleges that the domain names at issue are effectively controlled by the same person or entity, 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 are registered to “Kamran Sattar” of Pakistan through the same registrar, Namecheap. The disputed domain names display the same primary name server. The disputed domain names also resolve to websites with virtually identical content that copies Complainant’s. The disputed domain names were also registered on the same day. The Panel determines that the disputed domain names are controlled by the same person or entity and will refer to the named respondents as Respondent.
A. Complainant
1. Respondent’s <spectrumdiscounts.store> and <spectrumbillingservice.online> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s SPECTRUM mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <spectrumdiscounts.store> and <spectrumbillingservice.online> domain names.
3. Respondent registered and uses the <spectrumdiscounts.store> and <spectrumbillingservice.online> domain names in bad faith.
B. Respondent did not file a Response.
Complainant, Charter Communications Holding Company, LLC, is a telecommunications company. Complainant holds a registration for the SPECTRUM mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 6,311,602, registered on Apr. 6, 2021).
Respondent registered the <spectrumdiscounts.store> and <spectrumbillingservice.online> domain names on January 29, 2023, and uses them to 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 Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the SPECTRUM mark through registration with the USPTO. See Nintendo of America Inc. v. lin amy, FA 1818485 (Forum Dec. 24, 2018) ("Complainant’s ownership a USPTO trademark registration for the NINTENDO mark evidences Complainant’s rights in such mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”)
Respondent’s <spectrumdiscounts.store> and <spectrumbillingservice.online> domain names use the SPECTRUM mark and simply add the generic phrases “discounts” or “billing service” along with the TLDs “.store” or “.online”. Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), adding a generic term and TLDs is insufficient to distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark. See Wiluna Holdings, LLC v. Edna Sherman, FA 1652781 (Forum Jan. 22, 2016) (Finding the addition of a generic term and gTLD is insufficient in distinguishing a disputed domain name from a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).); see also Bittrex, Inc. v. Privacy protection service - whoisproxy.ru, FA 1759828 (Forum Jan. 12, 2018) (“The Panel here finds that the <bittrex.market> domain name is identical to the BITTREX mark under Policy ¶4(a)(i).”) Thus, the Panel finds that Respondent’s <spectrumdiscounts.store> and <spectrumbillingservice.online> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s SPECTRUM mark.
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Once Complainant makes a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)); see also Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) (“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”).
Complainant argues that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <spectrumdiscounts.store> and <spectrumbillingservice.online> domain names as Respondent is not commonly known by the domain names and Complainant has not authorized or licensed Respondent to use its SPECTRUM mark. The WHOIS information identifies Respondent as “Kamran Sattar.” Therefore the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names, and thus has no rights under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Tercent Inc. v. Lee Yi, FA 139720 (Forum Feb. 10, 2003) (stating “nothing in [the respondent’s] WHOIS information implies that [the respondent] is ‘commonly known by’ the disputed domain name” as one factor in determining that Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) does not apply); 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).”)
Complainant asserts that Respondent does not use the <spectrumdiscounts.store> and <spectrumbillingservice.online> domain names for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a noncommercial or fair use because it uses them to pass off as Complainant and offer competing services. Under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii), passing off as a complainant is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a noncommercial or fair use. See ShipChain, Inc. v. 谢东东 / 谢东东, FA 1785189 (Forum June 21, 2018) (“The resolving webpages between Complainant’s and Respondent’s websites are virtually the same. Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name does not confer rights and legitimate interests under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii).”) Complainant provides screenshots of the resolving webpages, which mimic Complainant’s website and purport to offer Complainant’s services. The Panel finds that this is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a noncommercial or fair use, and thus Respondent has no rights under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Complainant asserts that Respondent registered the <spectrumdiscounts.store> and <spectrumbillingservice.online> domain names with actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the SPECTRUM mark. The Panel agrees, noting the fame of the SPECTRUM mark and Respondent’s use of the disputed domain names to pass off as Complainant, and finds further bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See AutoZone Parts, Inc. v. Ken Belden, FA 1815011 (Forum Dec. 24, 2018) (“Complainant contends that Respondent’s knowledge can be presumed in light of the substantial fame and notoriety of the AUTOZONE mark, as well as the fact that Complainant is the largest retailer in the field. The Panel here finds that Respondent did have actual knowledge of Complainant’s mark, demonstrating bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”)
The Panel finds that Complainant has 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 <spectrumdiscounts.store> and <spectrumbillingservice.online> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist
Dated: May 24, 2023
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page