The Complainant is Corning Incorporated, United States of America (“United States” or “U.S.”), represented by Gowling WLG (Canada) LLP, Canada.
The Respondent is kai zheng, zheng kai, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 17, 2021. On March 18, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On March 20, 2021, 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 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 23, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 12, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 13, 2021. The Center appointed Francine Tan as the sole panelist in this matter on April 20, 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 is a publicly-traded company. It has a long history of over 165 years and is one of the world’s leading innovators in materials science. The Complainant’s expertise lies in glass science, ceramics science and optical physics. In 2018 alone, the Complainant generated USD 11.29 billion in revenue, and over USD 30 billion between 2016 and 2018. The Complainant operates a website at “www.corning.com”. The Complainant owns numerous trade mark registrations for the CORNING trade mark in many countries around the world, including in China. It owns the following trade mark registrations in the United States and China: (i) U.S. Trade Mark Registration No. 0618649 for CORNING, registered on January 3, 1956; (ii) U.S. Trade Mark Registration No. 0918421 for CORNING, registered on August 17, 1971; (iii) U.S. Trade Mark Registration No. 1682729 for CORNING, registered on April 14, 1992; (iv) U.S. Trade Mark Registration No. 1748228 for CORNING, registered on January 26, 1993; (v) China Trade Mark Registration No. 576489 for CORNING, registered on December 20, 1991; (vi) China Trade Mark Registration No. 3205065 for CORNING, registered on March 14, 2004; and (vii) China Trade Mark Registration No. 3205064 for CORNING, registered on October 14, 2003. The disputed domain name was registered on May 8, 2020, and at the time of filing of the Complaint, it resolved to a website providing various third-party links to gambling websites. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s CORNING trade mark in which it has rights. The addition of the letter “d” before to the word “corning” does not obviate confusion with the Complainant’s CORNING trade mark. The minor misspelling of the Complainant’s trade mark in the disputed domain name, commonly known as “typosquatting”, makes no difference to the overall impression of the dominant word in the disputed domain name. The addition of the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” and the elimination of spaces are without legal significance in determining the issue of confusing similarity. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent is not in any way associated with the Complainant nor authorized by the Complainant to use the disputed domain name. There is no evidence that the Respondent has ever used or demonstrated preparations to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. The Respondent’s typosquatting activities undermines a claim of rights or legitimate interests, as does the use of the disputed domain name for a website featuring links to various gambling websites. The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The disputed domain name was registered in an attempt to intentionally attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent’s website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s CORNING mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement. Typosquatting is, in itself, prima facie evidence of bad faith. The Respondent’s typosquatting shows that he had actual knowledge of the Complainant’s CORNING trade mark at the time of registration or constructive knowledge of the aforesaid by virtue of the Complainant’s trade mark registrations. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant has established it has rights in the CORNING trade marks. The trade mark is reproduced in its entirety in the disputed domain name. The Panel agrees that the addition of the letter, “d”, does not serve to avoid confusing similarity with the Complainant’s trade mark. Further, the gTLD “.com” is a technical requirement for domain name registrations and not relevant to the issue of the identity or confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trade mark. The Panel accordingly finds that the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been satisfied. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Panel finds that the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Complainant’s registrations of the CORNING trade mark, even those in China, long predate the registration date of the disputed domain name. The Complainant did not license or authorize the Respondent to use the CORNING trade mark as a trade mark or in a domain name. Neither is there evidence that the Respondent is commonly known by the name “Corning”. The use of the disputed domain name which incorporates the Complainant’s CORNING trade mark for a website containing third-party links to gambling content does not constitute alegitimate noncommercial or fair use nor a bona fide offering of goods or services. Having established a prima facie case, the burden of production shifts to the Respondent to show that he has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent failed to respond to or rebut the Complainant’s assertions in this proceeding. In the absence of any response from the Respondent and evidence to rebut the Complainant’s prima facie case, the Panel has no basis to conclude other than that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Panel therefore finds that the second element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been satisfied. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Complainant’s CORNING trade mark is a well-established mark which has been in use for a long time. Subject to evidence to the contrary, the Panel is persuaded that the Respondent could not have selected the disputed domain name by pure coincidence and without the Complainant and/or its CORNING mark in mind. The “mere registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar (particularly domain names comprising typos or incorporating the mark plus a descriptive term) to a famous or widely-known trademark by an unaffiliated entity can by itself create a presumption of bad faith” (see section 3.1.4 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition). The Panel finds that the Respondent’s absence of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, its failure to respond in this proceeding, and the use of the disputed domain name for providing links to gambling websites, all constitute evidence that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Panel therefore finds that the third element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been satisfied. 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 Francine Tan
Sole Panelist
Date: April 30, 2021
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy