The Complainant is Dell Inc., United States of America (“United States” or “US”), represented by Simone Intellectual Property Services Asia Limited, Hong Kong, China.
The Respondent is Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot, United States / Chen Hui, Gname, Singapore. 2. The Domain Names and Registrar
The disputed domain names The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 10, 2021. On March 10, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On March 11, 2021, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain names, which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on March 11, 2021, 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 March 15, 2021. 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 March 17, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 6, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 7, 2021. The Center appointed Clive Duncan Thorne as the sole panelist in this matter on April 13, 2021. 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, Dell Inc., is a world leader in computers, computer accessories, and other computer-related products and services. It has developed a family of businesses, collectively known as “Dell Technologies”, that offers products and services related to technology, software, security, and other products. Dell Technologies provides the essential infrastructure for organizations to build their digital future, transform IT, and protect their most important asset, information. Over the years the Complainant has invested heavily in marketing its products, devoted hundreds of millions of USD to advertising and promoting its products and services through media in many countries, including television, radio, magazines, newspapers, and the Internet. The Complainant sells its products and services in over 180 countries, including China. In the fiscal year 2019 it generated USD 91.3 million in revenue and was listed as No. 35 on Fortune 500. The Complainant refers to its official US website “www.dell.com” and its official Chinese website “www.dell.com/zh-cn/shop.” The Complainant has used the mark DELL and other marks incorporating DELL for many years for computer-related products and services. At Annex 4 to the complaint the Complainant exhibits details of the US marks relied upon. These are: DELL TECHNOLOGIES No. 5651864 registered January 15, 2019. All of these registrations pre-date the registration of the disputed domain names on January 1, 2021. The disputed domain names resolve to websites offering “adult content”. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant submits: i. On the evidence the Complainant owns registered and unregistered trade mark rights in the mark DELL and that the three disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the mark DELL; ii. There is no evidence that the Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names; iii. The evidence shows that in registering and using the disputed domain names the Respondent is shown to have been “targeting” the Complainant’s mark DELL and that the Respondent has been using them to access websites, which it has set up and is operating offering “adult content”. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The evidence of the Complainant’s registered trade marks for the mark DELL set out in section 4 above establishes that it owns registered rights in the mark DELL. It is also established from the evidence of the Complainant’s use of the mark DELL worldwide that it has acquired “substantial fame and recognition on a global basis” entitling it to unregistered rights in the mark DELL. The disputed domain name The disputed domain name The disputed domain name The Panel also takes into account that it is well-established that the addition of the generic Top-Level Domain “.com” can be disregarded in considering confusing similarity. Accordingly and in the absence of evidence to the contrary the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the mark DELL in which the Complainant has registered trade mark rights within paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant relies upon the fact that it has not authorized the Respondent to use the mark DELL. It has not licensed or otherwise authorized the Respondent to use the mark DELL and in particular to register domain names incorporating DELL. There is no evidence that the Respondent is commonly known by any of the disputed domain names. The Complainant submits that there is no evidence of a legitimate, noncommercial or fair use of any of the disputed domain names. To the contrary, the evidence of the Respondent’s use adduced by the Complainant (set out in section 6C below) demonstrates that the disputed domain names were registered for the purpose of trading off the Complainant’s name, reputation and goodwill in the mark DELL. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names within paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Complainant submits that as a result of its use, the DELL mark, has acquired substantial fame and recognition. This is supported by the evidence of use adduced by the Complainant. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary from the Respondent, the Panel finds the Complainant’s evidence set out above to be true. The Complainant submits that the disputed domain names were “maliciously” registered by the Respondent with “clear” knowledge of the Complainant’s registered marks DELL. This is as a result of the “high degree” of reputation and recognition amongst relevant consumers on a global basis. The evidence of the Complainant’s long-term and extensive promotion of its goods and services globally under the mark DELL shows that it has achieved an “overwhelming reputation” in the mark DELL, which the Respondent would have had full knowledge of. The Complainant relies upon the fact that the Respondent chose to utilize the mark DELL because it would have had a “clear awareness” of the mark. The Complainant also relies upon the fact that all three of the disputed domain names resolve to websites set up by the Respondent and which offer “adult content”. Print outs of the content of the three websites are exhibited as Annex 5 to the Complaint and which the Panel finds contain “adult content”. In the Panel’s view, there is no legitimate use of the disputed domain names by the Respondent. The Respondent is exploiting the Complainant’s rights in the mark DELL to attract Internet users to its websites so as to access the “adult content”. This will inevitably damage the Complainant’s goodwill in its mark. The Panel also takes into account that “per se illegitimate activity”, which in the Panel’s view would include “adult content” can never confer rights or legitimate interest on a Respondent and is manifestly considered evidence of bad faith. (See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 3.1.4). In the absence of a Response, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used by the Respondent in bad faith within 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; Clive Duncan Thorne
DELL (logo) No. 1860272 registered October 25, 1994.
DELL (logo) No. 3215023 registered March 6, 2007.
DELL No. 2236785 registered April 6, 1999.
DELL No. 2794705 registered December 16, 2003.
DELL No. 2806789 registered January 20, 2004.
DELL No. 2806770 registered October 28, 2003.
DELL No. 2808852 registered January 27, 2004.
Sole Panelist
Date: April 22, 2021
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy