ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION TracFone Wireless, Inc. v. sdfgsdf Case No. D2023-1307 1. The Parties The Complainant is TracFone Wireless, Inc., United States of America ("United States"), internally represented, United States. The Respondent is sdfgsdf, United States. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name is registered with NameSilo, LLC (the "Registrar"). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on March 27, 2023. On March 27, 2023, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On March 27, 2023, 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 (PrivacyGuardian.org LLC) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on April 6, 2023, 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 amendment to the Complaint on April 7, 2023. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to 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 April 14, 2023. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 4, 2023. The Respondent did not submit a response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on May 5, 2023. The Center appointed William F. Hamilton as the sole panelist in this matter on May 17, 2023. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and page 2 Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7. 4. Factual Background The Complainant provides prepaid cellular telephone service in the United States. The Complainant has over 20 million subscribers. The Complainant offers a wide variety of cellular phone services. The Complainant is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Verizon Communications Inc. ("Verizon"). The Complainant owns several registrations for the trademark TRACFONE (the "Mark") with the United States Patent and Trademark Office the earliest of which is Registration No. 2,114,692 dated November 18, 1997. The Complainant owns numerous domain names incorporating the Mark including the domain name which resolves to the Complainant's principal commercial website. The disputed domain name was registered on March 2, 2023. The disputed domain name resolves to a "Deceptive Website Warning". 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant asserts the disputed domain name is identical to the Mark because the disputed domain name adopts the Mark entirely and merely adds the dictionary term "wireless" which describes the kind of services offered by the Complainant. The Complainant asserts that the Complainant never authorized the Respondent to use the disputed domain name, that the Respondent is not generally known by the disputed domain name, never operated a business under the disputed domain name, has not advertised the disputed domain name, and never engaged in any bona fide commercial activity in connection with the disputed domain name. The Complainant asserts that the Respondent knew or should have known of the Mark with reasonable investigation and registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith. Moreover, the disputed domain name is blocked by a deceptive website warning. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, to succeed the Complainant must satisfy the Panel that: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and (iii) the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's Mark. page 3 The disputed domain name is composed of the Mark which is immediately followed by the dictionary word "wireless" rendering the disputed domain name confusingly similar to the Mark. Giorgio Armani S.p.A Milan Swiss Branch Mendrisio v. Mage Enterprises Inc., WIPO Case No. D2011-1172. A domain name which wholly incorporates a complainant's registered mark is sufficient to establish confusingly similarity for the purposes of the Policy, and as here, the addition to the Mark of a term does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition ("WIPO Overview 3.0"), sections 1.7 and 1.8 ("where the relevant trademark is recognizable with the disputed domain name, the additions of other terms (whether descriptive, geographic, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) would not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element"). The Top-Level Domain ("TLD") of the disputed domain name, in this case ".com", may be disregarded for the purposes of assessment under the first element, as it is viewed as a standard registration requirement. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.11.1. The Complainant has met its burden under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Panel finds on the evidence presented that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Complainant has specifically disavowed providing the Respondent with permission to use the disputed domain name or the Mark. There is no evidence that the Respondent has conducted any bona fide business under the disputed domain name or is commonly known by the disputed domain name. The Complainant has established a prima facie case in its favor, which shifts the burden of production on this point to the Respondent. The Respondent, however, has failed to come forth with any evidence showing any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name does not resolve to an active website, and the disputed domain name will likely confuse unsuspecting Internet users into believing the disputed domain name resolves to a website associated, sponsored, or affiliated with the Complainant which is blocked by a "Deceptive Website Warning." The facts and circumstances presented to the Panel demonstrate that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Complainant has met its burden under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Under paragraph 4(b) of the Policy, bad faith may be established by any one of the following non-exhaustive scenarios: (i) circumstances indicating that the respondent has registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name 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 the respondent's documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or (ii) the respondent has 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 the respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or (iii) the respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or page 4 (iv) by using the domain name, the respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website 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 the respondent's website or location or of a product or service on the respondent's website or location. The Panel finds on the evidence presented that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Mark is well-known in the United States where the Respondent resides. It strains credulity to believe that the Respondent innocently and unknowingly composed the disputed domain name entirely of the Complainant's Mark while adding the dictionary team "wireless" that describes the Complainant's services. The Panel finds that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant's well-known Mark when registering and using the disputed domain name to attract unsuspecting Internet users to the Respondent's website. Moreover, the circumstances of this case require the conclusion that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith and any non-use does not prevent a finding of bad faith. The Mark is well established; the disputed domain prominently features the Mark plus a suffix describing the Complaint's services; the Respondent's identifying information provided to the Registrar is gibberish; access to the Respondent's website is blocked by a deceptive website warning; and the Respondent did not respond to the Complaint and did not provide any reasonable explanation for the registration of the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.3. The Panel finds that the Respondent specifically targeted the Complainant and its Mark and registered the disputed domain name with the ultimate intent to divert Internet traffic and benefit from unsuspecting Internet users seeking out the Complainant or for other nefarious purposes. The Complainant has met its burden 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 name be transferred to the Complainant. /William F. Hamilton/ William F. Hamilton Sole Panelist Date: May 18, 2023
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy