Charter Communications Holding Company, LLC v. Faisal Yasin
Claim Number: FA2305002045185
Complainant is Charter Communications Holding Company, LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Julie Kent of Holland & Hart LLP, Colorado, USA. Respondent is Faisal Yasin (“Respondent”), Pakistan.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <spectrumauthorizsed.com>, registered with In2net Network Inc.
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 Forum electronically on May 18, 2023. Forum received payment on May 18, 2023.
On May 24, 2023, In2net Network Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <spectrumauthorizsed.com> domain name is registered with In2net Network Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. In2net Network Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the In2net Network 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 May 25, 2023, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of June 14, 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@spectrumauthorizsed.com. Also on May 25, 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 21, 2023, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Alan L. Limbury 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, Charter Communications Holding Company, LLC, is a telecommunications company providing cable television, internet, phone, and related telecommunications services. Complainant has rights in the SPECTRUM mark based upon registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”). The <spectrumauthorizsed.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark.
Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <spectrumauthorizsed.com> domain name. Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant’s SPECTRUM mark and is not commonly known by the domain name. Additionally, Respondent does not use the domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, Respondent uses the domain name to impersonate and falsely suggest an association with Complainant, including by using Complainant’s SPECTRUM marks, copying content from Complainant’s website, claiming to operate at Complainant’s store location, and falsely purporting to be an “Authorized Retailer” for Complainant.
Respondent registered the typosquatted <spectrumauthorizsed.com> domain name in bad faith with actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the SPECTRUM mark and is using it in bad faith by offering competing services in order to disrupt Complainant’s business. Respondent is passing itself off as Complainant and may use email communications to conduct phishing schemes.
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 several SPECTRUM marks based upon registrations with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 6,311,602, registered on April 6, 2021). The Panel finds Respondent’s <spectrumauthorizsed.com> domain name to be confusingly similar to Complainant’s SPECTRUM mark because it includes the mark in its entirety, together with a misspelled version of the generic term “authorized”, and the inconsequential generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com”, which may be ignored.
Complainant has established this element.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
(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 <spectrumauthorizsed.com> domain name was registered on February 14, 2023. It resolves to a website that purports to offer SPECTRUM-branded cable, internet, and phone services; prominently displays the SPECTRUM marks; mirrors the design and content of Complainant’s own website; and claims to be an “Authorized Retailer” for Complainant. MX records have been set up.
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 <spectrumauthorizsed.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 SPECTRUM mark when Respondent registered the <spectrumauthorizsed.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).
Further, the MX records associated with the domain name make it likely that Respondent registered the typosquatted domain name with bad faith intent to phish for the personal information of Internet users by masquerading as Complainant.
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 <spectrumauthorizsed.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Alan L. Limbury, Panelist
Dated: June 21, 2023.
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page