Charter Communications Holding Company, LLC v. Deepanshu Soni
Claim Number: FA2305002044848
Complainant is Charter Communications Holding Company, LLC (“Complainant”), USA, represented by Julie Kent of Holland & Hart LLP, Colorado, USA. Respondent is Deepanshu Soni (“Respondent”), India.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <spectruminternetdeals.info>, registered with Wild West Domains, 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.
Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on May 16, 2023; Forum received payment on May 16, 2023.
On May 17, 2023, Wild West Domains, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <spectruminternetdeals.info> domain name is registered with Wild West Domains, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Wild West Domains, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Wild West Domains, 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 May 19, 2023, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of June 8, 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@spectruminternetdeals.info. Also on May 19, 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 June 13, 2023, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. 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
i) Complainant, Charter Communications Holding Company, LLC, is a telecommunications company. Complainant has rights in the SPECTRUM mark through its registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 6,311,602, registered on April 6, 2021). The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s SPECTRUM mark as it incorporates the mark in its entirety while adding the generic terms “internet” and “deals” along with the “.info” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).
ii) Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Complainant authorized or licensed Respondent to use its SPECTRUM mark in the disputed domain name. Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, but instead previously offered competing services while purporting to be an authorized reseller of Complainant and currently making inactive use of the mark.
iii) Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent disrupts Complainant’s business and passed off as Complainant while claiming to be an authorized retailer and trading on Complainant’s goodwill. Respondent currently fails to make active use of the domain name. Furthermore, Respondent registered the disputed domain name with constructive and/or actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the SPECTRUM mark.
B. Respondent
Respondent did not submit a response in this proceeding.
1. The disputed domain name was registered on April 18, 2023.
2. Complainant has established rights in the SPECTRUM mark through its registration with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 6,311,602, registered on April 6, 2021).
3. The disputed domain name’s resolving website mimics Complainant’s website by displaying Complainant’s SPECTRUM marks, copying significant content from Complainant’s website, and falsely purporting to be an “Authorized Reseller” for Complainant.
4. Respondent attempted to mislead users into navigating to a website that was not affiliated with Complainant and which provided services that directly competed with Complainant’s own SPECTRUM-branded offerings.
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 asserts rights in the SPECTRUM mark through its registration with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 6, 311,602, registered on April 6, 2021). Registration of a mark with the USPTO is generally sufficient in demonstrating rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Since Complainant has provided evidence of trademark registration with the USPTO, the Panel finds Complainant has established rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant contends that the disputed domain name <spectruminternetdeals.info> is confusingly similar to Complainant’s SPECTRUM mark. Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), adding generic terms and a gTLD to a mark is insufficient in differentiating from the mark. See MTD Products Inc v. J Randall Shank, FA 1783050 (Forum June 27, 2018) (“The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark as it wholly incorporates the CUB CADET mark before appending the generic terms ‘genuine’ and ‘parts’ as well as the ‘.com’ gTLD.”); see also Gagemaker, LP v. Pavel B Novoselov, FA 1714411 (Forum Mar. 20, 2017) (“Therefore, because Respondent only added “.info” to an otherwise unchanged mark, the Panel agrees that Respondent has not distinguished the domain name from Complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”). The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant’s SPECTRUM mark in its entirety while adding the generic terms “internet” and “deals” along with the “.info” gTLD. Thus, the Panel finds the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), then 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 Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Complainant authorized or licensed Respondent to use its mark in the disputed domain name. Under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), where a response is lacking, relevant WHOIS information may demonstrate that a respondent is not commonly known by a disputed domain name. See Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Dale Anderson, FA1504001613011 (Forum May 21, 2015) (concluding that because the WHOIS record lists “Dale Anderson” as the registrant of the disputed domain name, the respondent was not commonly known by the <statefarmforum.com> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)). Additionally, lack of authorization to use a complainant’s mark may indicate that the respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. See Indeed, Inc. v. Ankit Bhardwaj / Recruiter, FA 1739470 (Forum Aug. 3, 2017) (”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.”). The unmasked WHOIS information identifies Respondent as “Deepanshu Soni.” Therefore, the Panel finds Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
Complainant contends that Respondent is not using the disputed domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services, nor any noncommercial or fair use. Respondent attempts passing itself off as Complainant. Respondent initially used the disputed domain name to impersonate and falsely suggest an association with Complainant. Replicating complainant’s website is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) & (iii). See Ripple Labs Inc. v. Jessie McKoy / Ripple Reserve Fund, FA 1790949 (Forum July 9, 2018) (finding the respondent did not use the domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services per Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) where the website resolving from the disputed domain name featured the complainant’s mark and various photographs related to the complainant’s business). Complainant provides screenshots of Complainant’s own website and the disputed domain name’s resolving website, displaying Complainant’s SPECTRUM marks, copying significant content from Complainant’s website, and falsely purporting to be an “Authorized Reseller” for Complainant. In doing so, Respondent attempted to mislead users into navigating to a website that was not affiliated with Complainant and which provided services that directly competed with Complainant’s own SPECTRUM-branded offerings. Now, Respondent fails to make active use of the domain name’s resolving webpage. Thus, the Panel finds Respondent is not using the disputed domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services, nor any noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii).
The Panel finds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case that arises from the considerations above. All of these matters go to make out the prima facie case against Respondent. As Respondent has not filed a Response or attempted by any other means to rebut the prima facie case against it, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Complainant argues Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith by disrupting Complainant’s business and previously passing off as Complainant while purporting to be an authorized reseller. An attempt to direct Internet users to a website that mimics a complainant’s website in order to confuse users into believing that the respondent is the complainant, or is otherwise affiliated or associated with the complainant supports a finding of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Bittrex, Inc. v. Wuxi Yilian LLC, FA 1760517 (Forum Dec. 27, 2017) (finding bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where “Respondent registered and uses the <lbittrex.com> domain name in bad faith by directing Internet users to a website that mimics Complainant’s own website in order to confuse users into believing that Respondent is Complainant, or is otherwise affiliated or associated with Complainant.”); see also The Prudential Insurance Company of America v. Henrique Bryan Souza / DATAMIX ENSINO DE INFORMATICA, FA 1718308 (Forum Apr. 3, 2017) (finding bad faith where the respondent used the disputed domain name to resolve to a website upon which the respondent imitated the complainant’s mark, logo, and color scheme to create a “strikingly similar” website). The Panel recalls that Complainant provides screenshots of Complainant’s own website and the disputed domain name’s resolving website, displaying Complainant’s SPECTRUM marks, copying significant content from Complainant’s website, and falsely purporting to be an “Authorized Reseller” for Complainant. In doing so, Respondent attempted to mislead users into navigating to a website that was not affiliated with Complainant and which provided services that directly competed with Complainant’s own SPECTRUM-branded offerings. Therefore, the Panel finds Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv).
Complainant further contends that Respondent registered the disputed domain name with constructive and/or actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the SPECTRUM mark due to the fame and notoriety of the mark. The Panel infers, due to the notoriety of Complainant’s mark and the manner of use of the disputed domain name that Respondent had knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the SPECTRUM mark at the time of registering the disputed domain name, and finds that Respondent registered the disputed domain in bad faith under 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 <spectruminternetdeals.info> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq., Panelist
Dated: June 14, 2023
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page