WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION PC-Doctor, Inc. v. P, Kevin Raimi Case No. D2009-0952 1. The Parties
The Complainant is PC-Doctor, Inc. of Reno, Nevada, United States of America, represented by Fenwick & West, LLP, United States of America.
The Respondent is P, Kevin Raimi of Meizhou, People's Republic of China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name
is registered with FastDomain, Inc. 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 14, 2009. On July 15, 2009, the Center transmitted by email to FastDomain, Inc. a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On July 29, 2009, FastDomain, Inc. transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on July 30, 2009 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on July 31, 2009. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).
In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on August 3, 2009. The Center forwarded to the Respondent a Notification of Complaint and Notification of Administrative Proceeding with the Notification, Complaint (with attachments) and Amended Complaint and, copying the Registrar, Fast Domain Inc. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was August 23, 2009. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, on August 24, 2009 the Center forwarded to the Respondent a Notification of Respondent Default.
The Center appointed Harry L. Arkin as the sole panelist in this matter on September 7, 2009. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted and has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7. 4. Factual Background
The Respondent registered the domain name
on August 13, 2008; such registration expired August 13, 2009 per Exhibit A to the Complaint according to the WHOIS database. (However, the Panel notes that upon being contacted by the Center, the registrar has confirmed the disputed domain name is subject to these proceedings.) The Complainant registered the trademark PC-Doctor in 1998 having filed the same in 1996. The Complainant also registered such Trademark in the European Union (Community Trademark), Finland, Japan and Taiwan as evidenced by Annex D to the Complaint. The Complainant registered the domain name on September 24, 1996, with variations thereof on December 9, 1999 and thereafter, as evidenced by Annex F of the Complaint. Additionally, the Complainant currently has pending trademark applications for the trademark PC-DOCTOR in various countries of the world as shown by Annex E to the Complaint.
Other Annexes to the Complaint disclose efforts made by the Complainant to persuade the Respondent to transfer the domain name to the Complainant amicably. It is submitted that previously the website at the disputed domain name would have disclosed an entity called “PCDoctor Systems Ltd.”. It is further submitted however, that no connection between such an entity and the domain name holder has been revealed to the Complainant despite their efforts. Such letters essentially requesting the Respondent to cease and desist the use of the confusingly similar name and domain name, as well as other evidence of the use of its trademarked name are set forth in Annexes P to the Complaint, including complaints about the website at the disputed domain name addressed to the Complainant by third parties. The Panel notes that currently the website with the disputed domain name would appear to contain commercial information competing with the Complainant's line of business. 5. Parties Contentions A. Complaint
The factual contentions of the Complaint are essentially those set forth above in the preceding section of this Decision. No purpose is to be served, under the circumstances, to repeat those contentions here, except to state that the Complainant contends it has well established rights to the PC-Doctor mark and that the Respondent has no, and can have no, rights or legitimate interests in the domain name
, which is contended to be confusingly similar to the trademarks and domain name clearly established as belonging to the Complainant, and being used by the Respondent in bad faith, all as described in paragraph 4 of the Policy. B. Respondent:
The Respondent is in default and did not reply to the Complaint's contentions. 6. Decision and Findings
The Panel finds the following: A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
As shown by the Complainant, the Respondent's domain name incorporates the Complainant's mark merely adding the word “-utilities” in the disputed domain name it caused to be registered. There is thus no question, and the Panel thus finds, that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to trademarks, within the meaning of the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i), in which the Complainant has rights based upon the date and renewal of it's trademark, and registrations of its trademark and domain name “PC-Doctor, Inc.” and variations thereof. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant demonstrated a prima facie case by the exhibits to its Complaint on the Respondent's lack of a legitimate, non-common interest or use of the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not rebutted the Complainant's allegations. As a result, the Panel finds on the record that there is no legitimate interest, and no rights of the Respondent in the disputed domain name which the Respondent has registered. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Panel finds that there is no evidence that the Complainant ever granted the Respondent a license to use the Complainant's name and thus is attempting to infringe upon the same by the use of the domain name. The Panel thus finds on the current record that the registration of the disputed domain name by the Respondent and its use as a diversion to interested users seeking information relating to the trademark and products of the Complainant has been done in bad faith. 7. Decision
For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the domain name,
be transferred to the Complainant.
Harry L. Arkin
Sole Panelist
Dated: September 25, 2009
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy