Waste Connections US, Inc. v. jiangli
Claim Number: FA2305002045961
Complainant is Waste Connections US, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Scott M. Hervey of Weintraub Tobin Chediak Coleman Grodin, California, USA. Respondent is jiangli (“Respondent”), China.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <myaccountwcicustomer.com>, (‘the Domain Name’) registered with Dynadot 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.
Dawn Osborne as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on May 24, 2023; Forum received payment on May 24, 2023.
On May 24, 2023, Dynadot Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <myaccountwcicustomer.com> Domain Name is registered with Dynadot Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Dynadot Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Dynadot 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 26, 2023, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of June 15, 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@myaccountwcicustomer.com. Also on May 26, 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 22, 2023 pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Dawn Osborne 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
The Complainant is a waste disposal services company and owns the domain name <wcicustomer.com> which automatically directs to the Complainant’s customer/bill pay portal located at <myaccount.wcicustomer.com>. This is where all the Complainant’s customers pay their bills online. The Complainant registered the <wcicustomer.com> domain name on November 1, 2011 and has been using that domain name in connection with its customer bill payment portal since as early as November 15, 2012 .
The Domain Name registered in 2023 has not been attached to an active web site, but is almost exactly the same as the address for the Complainant’s customer/bill pay portal (<myaccount.wcicustomer.com> versus <myaccountwcicustomer.com>). The Complainant is very concerned that the Domain Name will be used as part of a phishing scam against its customers.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
The Complainant registered the <wcicustomer.com> domain name on November 1, 2011 and has been using that domain name in connection with its customer bill payment portal for its waste disposal company since as early as November 15, 2012 .
The Domain Name registered in 2023 has not been attached to an active web site, but is almost exactly the same as the address for the Complainant’s customer/bill pay portal (<myaccount.wcicustomer.com> versus <myaccountwcicustomer.com>).
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 Domain Name consist of the Complainant's WCI mark (in which the Complainant owns common law rights in the USA for waste disposal services with first use in 2012), the generic words ‘my account’ and ‘customer’ and the gTLD .com.
The addition of generic words as well as a gTLD fails to differentiate a mark from a disputed domain name per Policy 4(a)(i). 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.”).
Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark.
As such the Panel holds that Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been satisfied.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant has not authorised the use of its mark. There is no evidence or reason to suggest the Respondent is, in fact, commonly known by the Domain Name. See Alaska Air Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines v. Song Bin, FA1408001574905 (Forum Sept. 17, 2014) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name as demonstrated by the WHOIS information and based on the fact that the complainant had not licensed or authorized the respondent to use its ALASKA AIRLINES mark).
There has been no use of the Domain Name. See Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Shemesh, FA 434145 (Forum Apr. 20, 2005)(Where the panel found inactive use is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy 4(c)(i).). Nor has there been any non commercial legitimate use made of the Domain Name.
The Domain Name appears to be a typosquatting registration differing from the url of the Complainant’s pay portal by a full stop or period. Typosquatting is an indication of a lack of rights or a legitimate interests. See Chegg Inc. v. yang qijin, FA1503001610050 (Forum Apr. 23, 2015) (“Users might mistakenly reach Respondent’s resolving website by misspelling Complainant’s mark. Taking advantage of Internet users’ typographical errors, known as typosquatting, demonstrates a respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interests under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).”).
As such the Panelist finds that the Respondent does not have rights or a legitimate interest in the Domain Name and that the Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
The Domain Name seeks to take advantage of the situation where Internet users may make a typographical error. Typosquatting itself is evidence of relevant bad faith registration and use and disruption of the Complainant’s business. See Diners Club int'l Ltd. v. Domain Admin ****** It's all in the name ******, FA 156839 (Forum June 23, 2003) (registering a domain name in the hope that Internet users will mistype the Complainant’s mark and be taken to the Respondent’s site is registration and use in bad faith). Typosquatting also indicates the Respondent had knowledge of the Complainant and its rights. See InfoSpace, Inc. v. Greiner, FA 227653 (Forum Mar. 8, 2004) (“Such a domain name evidences actual knowledge of the underlying mark prior to the registration of the domain name, and as Respondent failed to submit any evidence to counter this inferrence [sic], Respondent’s actions evidence bad faith registration of the disputed domain name.”).
As such, the Panelist believes that the Complainant has made out its case that the Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith and has satisfied the third limb of the Policy under para 4(b)(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 <myaccountwcicustomer.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Dawn Osborne, Panelist
Dated: June 22, 2023
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page