The Complainant is CenturyLink Intellectual Property LLC, of Denver, Colorado, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Wiley Rein LLP, United States.
The Respondent is A Domain Privacy of Beaumaris, Victoria, Australia / Shu Lin of Dalian, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain names , , , , , , and are registered with A, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 25, 2017. On January 27, 2017, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On February 10, 2017, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details.
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 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on February 13, 2017. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 5, 2017. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 7, 2017.
The Center appointed Dr. Clive N.A. Trotman as the sole panelist in this matter on March 21, 2017. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel 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 Complainant is a United States telecommunications and advanced entertainment services company with about 6 million broadband customers and 11.9 million total access lines. The adoption of the name and trademark CENTURYLINK, consequent upon the amalgamation of two companies, was announced in a press release on June 2, 2009, and the amalgamation was completed on July 1, 2009.
The Complainant has over 100 registrations for the trademark CENTURYLINK standing alone or in combination in at least 20 countries or trademark jurisdictions, of which the following service mark is representative for the purposes of this proceeding:
CENTURYLINK, word mark, United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”), principal register, filed May 4, 2009, registered July 26, 2011, registration number 4002609, class 38.
The Complainant also uses the domain names and .
The Respondent has not provided any background information except for such contact details as have been submitted to the Registrar for the purpose of registration of the disputed domain names, which were created on the following dates: , March 4, 2010; , February 20, 2010; , March 4, 2010; , February 21, 2010; , February 19, 2010; , February 21, 2010; , February 20, 2010. As indicated in the evidence submitted with the Complaint, the disputed domain names resolved to one or more websites of third parties either selling goods or services or providing links to advertisers, except that the disputed domain names and were in one instance redirected to the website “”, a recognised source of advertising links and software. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant contends that it has rights in the trademark CENTURYLINK and has produced a copy of the pertinent USPTO registration document. The Complainant says the disputed domain names are each confusingly similar to its trademark, which is highly distinctive. The disputed domain names differ from the Complainant’s trademark by variously the addition of one or two letters, the substitution of one or two letters, or by means of the prefix “www”.
The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. The Complainant says the Respondent has not been authorised to use the Complainant’s trademark and the burden of production is upon the Respondent to rebut the Complainant’s prima face case and show that it has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. There is no demonstrable use of the disputed domain names by the Respondent in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services because they are redirected to various websites hosting pay-per-click advertising links or sites apparently designed for phishing purposes or malware distribution. The Respondent cannot be commonly known by the disputed domain names and is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of them.
The Complainant further contends that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith. The Complainant’s trademark is distinctive and well known, and the Respondent must have been aware of it. The Respondent intends to attract Internet uses by confusion between each of the disputed domain names and the Complainant’s trademark. Internet users thus confused are likely to be led to the products and services of the Complainant’s competitors, causing loss to the Complainant. The Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain names commercially in order to derive a share of advertising revenue by taking advantage of the goodwill embodied in the Complainant’s trademark.
The Complainant asserts that some of the websites to which the disputed domain names may resolve are apparently configured to distribute malware to visitors.
The Complainant submits that the Respondent’s use of a privacy service to conceal its identity is a factor in support of a finding of bad faith. Furthermore the Respondent has engaged in a pattern of the registration of domain names involving the trademarks of others and of using them in bad faith.
The Senior Counsel for the Complainant has submitted a Declaration under penalty of perjury dated December 19, 2016, that refers to the creation of the Complainant’s name and trademark, the scope of the Complainant’s business, the use made by the Respondent of the disputed domain names, and the authenticity of evidential screen captures of the websites to which the disputed domain names have resolved.
The Complainant has cited a number of previous decisions under the Policy that it considers may support its position.
The Complainant requests the transfer of the disputed domain names. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy states that the Respondent is required to submit to a mandatory administrative proceeding in the event that the Complainant asserts to the applicable dispute-resolution provider, in compliance with the Rules, that:
“(i) your domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and
(ii) you have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(iii) your domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith”.
The Complainant has made the relevant assertions as required by the Policy. The dispute is properly within the scope of the Policy and the Panel has jurisdiction to decide the dispute. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel is satisfied by the evidence produced that the Complainant has rights in the trademark CENTURYLINK as required under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
The disputed domain names each have the generic Top-Level Domain (gTLD) suffix “.com”, which may generally be disregarded in the determination of confusing similarity. The disputed domain names then differ from the trademark CENTURYLINK in the following ways, respectively:
, by the substitution of “n” with “b”;
, by the substitution of “t” with “r”;
, by the substitution of “y” with “e”;
, by the duplication of “n”;
, by the duplication of “l”;
, by the substitution of “n” with “r”;
, by addition of the prefix “www” and deletion of “u”.
The Panel finds all of the above differences from the Complainant’s trademark to correspond to predictable typographical errors that, in the nature of keyboard usage, are likely to be made from time to time, for instance by hitting an adjacent key, hitting a key twice or dwelling on it where there is an auto-repeat function, not hitting a key positively, spelling phonetically (the Complainant’s trademark may sound to some like “centurelink”), misreading “n” and typing “r”, omission of the dot after “www” in the Internet address, or combinations of these.
The Panel finds on the balance of probabilities that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark and accordingly finds for the Complainant under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant has stated a prima facie case to the effect that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names and has not been authorised to use the Complainant's trademark.
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides for the Respondent to contest the Complainant’s prima facie case under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy and to establish rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name by demonstrating, without limitation:
“(i) before any notice to you of the dispute, your use 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) you (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the domain name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
(iii) you are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue”.
The Respondent has not contested the Complaint or replied at all. For reasons expanded upon below in the consideration of registration and use of the disputed domain names in bad faith, the Panel finds no evidence or reason to believe that any of the disputed domain names may have been used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. There is no evidence that any disputed domain name is a name by which the Respondent has been commonly known, or that it has been in fair or noncommercial use. The Panel finds for the Complainant under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Complainant is required to prove under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy that the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith. Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy lists four alternative circumstances, without limitation, that shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith by a respondent, namely:
“(i) circumstances indicating that you have registered or you have acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of your documented out of pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
(ii) you have registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that you have engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
(iii) you have registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your website or location or of a product or service on your website or location”.
According to the screen captures produced in evidence, the disputed domain names ultimately resolve to various websites that host retail sales or advertising links, or to the website “”, or to a website having more than one of these features. Some offer a disputed domain name for sale. Specifically, at the time the screen captures were made by the Complainant on December 19, 2016, the disputed domain names resolved to websites as follows:
, to a website of Dell computers;
, to link headings, including “C”, related to Internet technology;
, to link headings, including “C”, related to Internet technology;
, to “”, asking the visitor for their recent link clicking history and also offering a link to the Dell website;
, to “”, asking the visitor for their recent link clicking history;
, to a page with two sponsored listings, and headed “buy this domain”;
, to a page with 10 link headings, 9 of which used the word “Centurylink”, and headed “buy this domain”.
Thus, each disputed domain name has resolved ultimately to one or more websites of third parties either selling goods or services or providing links to advertisers, except that the disputed domain names and were in one instance redirected to the website “”, a recognised source of advertising links and software.
On the evidence, the Panel finds it more probable than not that the Respondent has invested money and effort in the creation of the disputed domain names for profitable purposes, specifically in order to gain a share of sales commissions or advertising revenues as a result of Internet users being redirected or following pay-per-click links. Whereas commission-earning redirections or links may be a common and legitimate adjunct to many websites, it cannot be legitimate to attract Internet users by means of a domain name incorporating another’s trademark without the trademark owner’s authorisation, or by means of a domain name designed to take advantage of a spelling mistake by an Internet user intending to visit the trademark owner’s website. All seven of the disputed domain names have been found to contain predictable typographical errors in the spelling of the Complainant’s trademark as it would be typed when seeking the Complainant’s authentic Internet presence. Irrespective of the ultimate consequences of the Complainant’s intended visitor being misled to any of the disputed domain names, whether links and competing advertisements may be displayed or malware may be downloaded, an intention of commercial benefit in return for the Respondent’s purposeful effort may reasonably be inferred. On balance, the Panel finds each of the disputed domain names to have been used with intent to attract Internet users for the Respondent’s commercial gain by confusion with the Complainant’s trademark, and to have been registered for that purpose, constituting registration and use in bad faith within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.
Whilst the use of a privacy service for domain name registration and use may be entirely legitimate in many circumstances, its use is not legitimate in an attempt to hinder proceedings under the Policy. The Respondent’s use of a privacy service was coupled with a failure to submit a response and with the provision of a purported physical address in China that the courier, attempting to deliver the Written Notice of the Complaint, reported as being “incomplete / wrong” according to the information in the case file. These are aggravating factors in the Panel’s finding of registration and use of the disputed domain names in bad faith in this case.
Accordingly, on the evidence and on the balance of probabilities, the Panel finds each of the disputed domain names to have been registered and used in bad faith under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. 7. Decision
For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain names , , , , , , and be transferred to the Complainant.
Dr. Clive N.A. Trotman
Sole Panelist
Date: April 4, 2017
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy