The Complainant is Combined Insurance Company of America, United States of America (“USA”), represented by Fish & Richardson P.C., USA.
The Respondent is Domain Administrator, See PrivacyGuardian.org, USA / Zhichao Yang, China; PrivacyDotLink, Cayman Islands / Zhichao Yang, China; Moniker Privacy Services, USA / Zhichao Yang, China; Whois Agent, Domain Protection Services, Inc., USA / Zhichao Yang, China; and, Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot, USA / Zhichao, China. 2. The Domain Names and Registrars
The disputed domain names The disputed domain names The disputed domain names The disputed domain names The disputed domain names The disputed domain names The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 8, 2020. On April 8, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrars a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On April 8, 9, 14, and 15, 2020, the Registrars transmitted by email to the Center their verification responses disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain names which differed from the named Respondents and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on April 15, 2020, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrars, and inviting the Complainant to amend the Complaint adding the Registrar-disclosed registrants as formal Respondents and provide relevant arguments or evidence demonstrating that all named Respondents are, in fact, the same entity and/or that all disputed domain names are under common control; and/or file a separate complaint for those disputed domain names for which common control could not be argued. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on April 19, 2020, removing three of the domain names included in the original Complaint. 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 April 24, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 14, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May 15, 2020. The Center appointed Wilson Pinheiro Jabur as the sole panelist in this matter on May 21, 2020. 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 an USA-based insurance provider. It is the owner of the - USA Trademark Registration No. 669,093 for the word mark COMBINED INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, registered on October 28, 1958, and successively renewed, in international class 36; - USA Trademark Registration No. 3,435,758 for the word & device mark COMBINED INSURANCE, registered on May 27, 2008, in international class 36; and - USA Trademark Registration No. 4,233,243 for the word & device mark COMBINED INSURANCE, registered on October 30, 2012, in international class 36. The disputed domain names are the following and are presently used in connection with parked pages displaying links to other websites offering insurance services (per-per-click (“PPC”) advertisements): Disputed domain name Registration Date Registrant Use Sept. 19, 2019 Zhichao Yang Parked page with PPC Sept. 19, 2019 Zhichao Yang Parked page with PPC Sept. 12, 2019 Zhichao Yang Parked page with PPC Sept. 19, 2019 Zhichao Yang Parked page with PPC Sept. 12, 2019 Zhichao Yang Parked page with PPC Sept. 19, 2019 Zhichao Yang Parked page with PPC Sept. 12, 2019 Zhichao Yang Parked page with PPC Sept. 19, 2019 Zhichao Yang Parked page with PPC Sept. 12, 2019 Zhichao Yang Parked page with PPC Sept. 19, 2019 Zhichao Yang Parked page with PPC Sept. 19, 2019 Zhichao Yang Parked page with PPC Sept. 19, 2019 Zhichao Yang Parked page with PPC Sept. 19, 2019 Zhichao Yang Parked page with PPC Sept. 19, 2019 Zhichao Yang Parked page with PPC Sept. 19, 2019 Zhichao Yang Parked page with PPC Sept. 19, 2019 Zhichao Yang Parked page with PPC Sept. 19, 2019 Zhichao Yang Parked page with PPC Sept. 19, 2019 Zhichao Yang Parked page with PPC Sept. 19, 2019 Zhichao Yang Parked page with PPC Sept. 19, 2019 Zhichao Yang Parked page with PPC Sept. 19, 2019 Zhichao Yang Parked page with PPC Sept. 19, 2019 Zhichao Yang Parked page with PPC Sept. 12, 2019 Zhichao Yang Parked page with PPC Sept. 12, 2019 Zhichao Yang Parked page with PPC Sept. 12, 2019 Zhichao Yang Parked page with PPC Sept. 19, 2019 Zhichao Yang Parked page with PPC Sept. 19, 2019 Zhichao Yang Parked page with PPC Sept. 19, 2019 Zhichao Yang Parked page with PPC Sept. 19, 2019 Zhichao Yang Parked page with PPC Sept. 19, 2019 Zhichao Yang Parked page with PPC Sept. 19, 2019 Zhichao Parked page with PPC Sept. 19, 2019 Zhichao Parked page with PPC Aug. 20, 2019 Zhichao Parked page with PPC Sept. 19, 2019 Zhichao Parked page with PPC Aug. 20, 2019 Zhichao Parked page with PPC Sept. 19, 2019 Zhichao Parked page with PPC Sept. 19, 2019 Zhichao Yang Parked page with PPC 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant claims to be a leading provider of individual and group supplemental accident, disability, health, and life insurance products, with a tradition dating back nearly 100 years, having used the COMBINED INSURANCE and COMBINED-formative trademarks since at least as early as 1940. The Complainant submits that regardless of the fact that the disputed domain names have originally been held through various privacy services to conceal the identity of the Respondent, once they were lifted, all of them pointed to Zhichao [Yang], located in Hefei, Anhui,China and registered under the same email address: “yzchwj@[xxxxx.xxx]” and are therefore under common control as can also be evidenced by the fact that they were all registered on or around the same date and all contain a misspelled version of the Complainant’s trademarks (“typosquatting”). Under the Complainant’s view, all of the disputed domain names consist of misspelled versions of the Complainant’s COMBINED INSURANCE trademark, being confusingly similar therewith. Regarding the absence of the Respondent’s rights or legitimate interests, the Complainant argues that: i. the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names, nor associated or affiliated with the Complainant, nor having the Complainant granted any rights to Respondent to use the COMBINED INSURANCE trademark; ii. the use made of the disputed domain names by the Respondent does not characterize a bona fide offering of goods or services under the Policy, since the Respondent is not making active use of the disputed domain names as all of them merely resolve to a webpage displaying links to other websites offering insurance services. As to the registration and use of the disputed domain names in bad faith, the Complainant states that: i. given the Complainant’s famous trademark and the fact that the Respondent registered nearly forty domain names that incorporate such mark represents a pattern of conduct directed against the Complainant, preventing the Complainant from reflecting its trademark in the disputed domain names and disrupting the Complainant’s business; ii. the use of a privacy service should be considered a further indication of the Respondent’s bad faith and attempt to conceal its true identity; iii. the Respondent has been named respondent in numerous past UDRP cases (such as Accenture Global Services Limited v. Moniker Privacy Services / Whois Agent, Domain Protection Services, Inc. / Zhichao Yang,WIPO Case No. D2019-2787; Sbarro Franchise Co., LLC v. Zhichao Yang,WIPO Case No. D2019-1074; CC Media Network Limited and CC Network Inc. v. Domain Administrator, See PrivacyGuardian.org / Zhichao Yang,WIPO Case No. D2019-0856; Andrey Ternovskiy dba Chatroulette v. Domain Administrator, See PrivacyGuardian.org / Zhichao Yang,WIPO Case No. D2019-0792; Defenders, Inc. v. Domain Administrator, PrivacyGuardian.org / Zhichao Yang,WIPO Case No. D2019-0351; Qualtries, LLC v. Privacydotlink, Customer 3753034 / Zhichao Yang,WIPO Case No. D2018-2199; Milliman, Inc. v. Domain Administrator, See PrivacyGuardian.org / Zhichao Yang,WIPO Case No. D2018-2178; Georgetown Hospital System d/b/a Tidelands Health v. Zhichao Yang,WIPO Case No. D2018-1258; Credit Karma, Inc. v. Domain Hostmaster, Whois Privacy Services Pty Ltd. / Zhichao Yang,WIPO Case No. D2017-0744; and Klarna AB v. Domain Administrator, See PrivacyGuardian.org / Zhichao Yang,WIPO Case No. D2017-0220); and iv. the use made of the disputed domain names by the Respondent characterizes a clear attempt to attract, for commercial gain, consumers by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark, as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Request for consolidation The Complainant has requested the consolidation of all disputed domain names in this proceeding arguing that they are under common control. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 4.11, establishes that “[i]n assessing whether a complaint filed by multiple complainants may be brought against a single respondent, panels look at whether (i) the complainants have a specific common grievance against the respondent, or the respondent has engaged in common conduct that has affected the complainants in a similar fashion, and (ii) it would be equitable and procedurally efficient to permit the consolidation.” All of the aforementioned criteria are present in this case and therefore this Panel accepts such request considering that it would be more procedurally efficient to have the 37 disputed domain names dealt with at the same procedure given that all of them: (i) direct Internet users to the same parked page displaying PPC advertisements; (ii) share similar information as to the underlying Respondent; (iii) characterize a misspelling of the Complainant’s trademark; and, (iv) were registered at three dates (August 20, 2019; September 12, 2019; and, September 19, 2019) within a month, which all adds up to presenting more than sufficient indications that the disputed domain names are under common control. B. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant has established rights over the COMBINED INSURANCE trademark (Annex 5 to the Complaint). The disputed domain names, according to the chart below all incorporate the Complainant’s trademark with a misspelling. Given that the disputed domain names “contain sufficiently recognizable aspects of the relevant mark” such typographic mistakes do not avoid a finding of confusing similarity under the Policy, as recognized by the WIPO Overview 3.0, sections 1.8 and 1.12. Disputed domain name Typo us t a c ar d m d e x s r r suppression of “i” w a o sn y v n a r i m l n e b I de c suppression of “s” u e cn s For the reasons above, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. C. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a non-exclusive list of circumstances that may indicate the Respondent’s rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. These circumstances are: i. before any notice of the dispute, the Respondent’s use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain names or a name corresponding to the disputed domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or ii. the Respondent (as an individual, business, or other organization) has been commonly known by the disputed domain names, in spite of not having acquired trademark or service mark rights; or iii. the Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain names, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue. The Respondent, in not responding to the Complaint, has failed to invoke any of the circumstances, which could demonstrate, pursuant to paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. This entitles the Panel to draw any inferences from such default as it considers appropriate, pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. Nevertheless, the burden of proof is still on the Complainant to make at least a prima facie case against the Respondent under the second UDRP element. According to the evidence submitted, the disputed domain names are being used in connection with parked pages displaying PPC advertisements that may lead Internet users to competitors of the Complainant, which clearly does not characterize a bona fide offering of goods or services under the Policy. In that sense, and also according to the evidence submitted, there is no evidence that the Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain names, and furthermore, the Complainant indeed states that the Respondent is not associated or affiliated with the Complainant, the Complainant not having granted any rights to the Respondent to use the COMBINED INSURANCE trademark. Under these circumstances and absent evidence to the contrary, the Panel finds that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests with respect to the disputed domain names. D. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Policy indicates in paragraph 4(b)(iv) that bad faith registration and use can be found in respect of a disputed domain name, where a respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the respondent’s website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with a complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the website or location or of a product or service on the website or location. In this case, both the registration and use of the disputed domain names in bad faith can be found pursuant to Policy paragraph 4(b)(iv) in view of the following factors: a. the fact that the Respondent has engaged in what appears to be a pattern of bad faith conduct, having registered dozens of disputed domain names targeting the Complainant and the Complainant’s trademarks here, as well as the trademarks of third parties in past UDRP cases; b. by having registered dozens of disputed domain names, the Respondent has engaged in a pattern of conduct preventing complainants from reflecting their marks in the disputed domain names; c. the Respondent is using the disputed domain names in connection with PPC advertisements, leading Internet users to competitors of the Complainant, creating a likelihood of confusion or undue association in Internet users; d. the choice to retain a privacy protection service to conceal its true identity; and e. the absence of any response to the Complaint, failing thereby to invoke any circumstance which could demonstrate good faith in the registration or use of the disputed domain names. For the reasons above, the Respondent’s conduct has to be considered, in this Panel’s view, as bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain names pursuant to paragraph 4(b)(iv) 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, Wilson Pinheiro Jabur
Sole Panelist
Date: June 4, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy