The Complainant is Seagate Technology LLC, United States of America, represented by Adsero IP, United States of America (“United States”).
The Respondent is Domains By Proxy, LLC, United States / Sumit Pandey, India. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 21, 2020. On August 21, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On August 24, 2020, the Registrar 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 August 26, 2020, 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 August 27, 2020. 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 August 31, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 20, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on September 21, 2020. The Center appointed Steven A. Maier as the sole panelist in this matter on October 1, 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 a limited liability company registered in Delaware, United States. It is a supplier of hard drives and other data storage media. The Complainant is the proprietor of numerous United States and other trademark registrations for the mark SEAGATE. Those registrations include, for example: - United States trademark number 1269032 for the mark SEAGATE, registered on March 6, 1984 in International Class 9; - United States trademark number 3800030 for the mark SEAGATE, registered on June 8, 2010 in International Classes 35, 36, 38, 39, and 42. The disputed domain name was registered on November 20, 2016. The disputed domain name has resolved to a website at “www.seagate.support”, which prominently features the SEAGATE mark and which purports to offer support services relating to the Complainant’s products. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant states that it has used the name and mark SEAGATE in commerce since at least 1980 and that the mark has acquired substantial reputation and goodwill as a brand identifier for the Complainant’s goods. The Complainant relies on its United States trademarks, trademark registrations in 116 other countries and its operation of a website at “www.seagate.com” since 1992, which it states is visited by 1.7 million consumers every month. The Complainant also produces evidence of its advertising and marketing materials and its presence on social media sites. The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical to its SEAGATE trademark. It submits that the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “support” is to be disregarded for the purposes of comparison, but even if it were to be considered it would only add to the likelihood of confusion as suggesting the Complainant’s official support website. The Complainant submits that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. It contends that it has never authorized the Respondent to use its SEAGATE mark, that the Respondent has not commonly been known by a name corresponding to the disputed domain name and that the Respondent is making neither bona fide commercial use nor legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name was registered and has been used in bad faith. It contends that the disputed domain name is identical to its SEAGATE mark and will inevitably lead Internet users to assume it is associated with the Complainant’s widely-known trademark. The Complainant states that the Respondent must have intended to refer to its SEAGATE mark when it registered the disputed domain name, as its website refers expressly to the Complainant’s products. The Complainant submits that the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name is in bad faith because it attempts misleadingly to attract Internet users to its website in the mistaken belief that it is associated with the Complainant. The Complainant further contends that the Respondent’s website offers services that compete with the Complainant’s and/or does not in fact offer any genuine services: the Complainant points to the lack of any contact details for the Respondent and submits that its contact page is intended to gather users’ personal information in a “phishing” exercise. The Complainant requests the transfer of the disputed domain name. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings In order to succeed in the Complaint, the Complainant is required to show that all three of the elements set out under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are present. Those elements are: (i) that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; (ii) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and (iii) that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The disputed domain name, In the view of the Panel, the Complainant’s submissions set out above give rise to a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. However, the Respondent has not filed a Response in this proceeding and has not submitted any explanation for its registration and use of the disputed domain name, or evidence of rights or legitimate interests on its part in the disputed domain name, whether in the circumstances contemplated by paragraph 4(c) of the Policy or otherwise. There being no other evidence before the Panel of any such rights or legitimate interests, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Based on the Complainant’s submissions in this proceeding, which the Respondent has not disputed, the Panel finds that the Respondent registered and has used the disputed domain name with the intention of impersonating the Complainant and of attracting Internet users to its website in the mistaken belief that it is an authorized website, operated by or otherwise legitimately associated with the Complainant (paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy). The disputed domain name is of itself inherently misleading, representing an unadorned use of the Complainant’s widely-known trademark. Further, the Respondent’s website does not appear to be genuine, and would not in any event meet the criteria set out in Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2001-0903 for the legitimate use of another party’s trademark to offer independent services. In particular, the Respondent’s website does not appear to offer bona fide services, and also fails accurately to disclose its relationship (or lack thereof) with the Complainant. The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. 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 name, Steven A. Maier
Sole Panelist
Date: October 7, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy