ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Sanmina Corporation v. Ge Haydon Case No. D2024-3838 1. The Parties The Complainant is Sanmina Corporation, United States of America (or “US”), represented by Loza & Loza LLP, United States of America. The Respondent is Ge Haydon, Hong Kong, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name is registered with Hostinger Operations, UAB (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 20, 2024. On September 20, 2024, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On September 23, 2024, 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 (PRIVACY PROTECT, LLC (PRIVACYPROTECT.ORG)) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on September 26, 2024, 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 September 27, 2024. 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 September 30, 2024. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was October 20, 2024. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on October 21, 2024.
page 2 The Center appointed Daniel Peña as the sole panelist in this matter on October 28, 2024. 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 global technology provider of end-to-end manufacturing solutions. It delivers support to Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs). The Complainant is the owner of the following trademark registrations: US TM Registration No. 4425999 for SANMINA registered on October 29, 2013 in class 40. US TM Registration No. 4425932 for SANMINA registered on October 29, 2013 in class 37. US TM Registration No. 4436890 for SANMINA registered on November 19, 2013 in class 42. US TM Registration No. 2087241 for (Logo) registered on August 12, 1997 in class 40. The disputed domain name was registered on June 20, 2024, and it previously resolved to a website featuring Respondent’s unauthorized use of the SANMINA trademark and logo, purportedly selling products bearing the SANMINA trademark. At the time of this Decision, the disputed domain name resolves to an inactive page. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain name. Notably, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademarks SANMINA, since it comprises and reproduces in its entirety, the SANMINA trademark. The Complainant further contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. According to the Complainant, the Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainant in any way. It is not an authorised dealer, distributor, or licensee of the Complainant, nor has it been otherwise allowed by the Complainant to make any use of its SANMINA trademarks or to seek registration of any domain name incorporating such trademarks. The Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name resolves to a commercial website which is bearing the Complainant’s copyrighted designs and logos. Such use deliberately attracts Internet users to its website in the mistaken belief that it is a website of the Complainant, or otherwise linked to or authorized by the Complainant. Thus, the Respondent is using the disputed domain name in bad faith to intentionally mislead Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trademarks. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions
page 3 6. Discussion and Findings To succeed, the Complainant must demonstrate that all of the elements listed in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy have been satisfied: (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 has been registered and is being used in bad faith. Considering these requirements, the Panel rules as follows. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires the Complainant to show that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights. The Complainant has provided evidence of its rights in the trademarks SANMINA on the basis of its multiple trademark registrations, in particular, in the United States of America. A trademark registration provides a clear indication that the rights in the trademark belong to the Complainant. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.2.1. It has also been established by prior UDRP panels that incorporating a trademark in its entirety into a domain name can be sufficient to establish that the domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark. Such findings were confirmed, for example, within WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7. The Respondent’s incorporation of the Complainant’s SANMINA trademark in its entirety in the disputed domain name is evidence that the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s mark. Furthermore, the addition of the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.xyz” is viewed as a standard registration requirement and as such is disregarded under the first element confusing similarity test. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.11.1. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical to the trademark in which the Complainant has rights, meaning that the Complainant has satisfied the requirement under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests In accordance with paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Panel observes that there is no relationship, disclosed to the Panel or otherwise apparent from the record, between the Respondent and the Complainant. The Panel also finds that there is no indication that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name because the Respondent’s name is “Ge Haydon” which has no connection with the SANMINA trademark. The Complainant claims that the Respondent has no connection or affiliation with the Complainant and has not received any license or consent, express or implied, to use the Complainant’s trademarks in a domain name or in any other manner. Furthermore, the disputed domain name directs to a commercial website that allegedly impersonates the Complainant and misrepresents that the website is owned or endorsed by the Complainant, exacerbating the Internet user confusion as to the website’s affiliation to the Complainant. Such use for deliberately attracting Internet users to its website in the mistaken belief that it is a website of the Complainant, or otherwise linked to or authorized by the Complainant supports a finding that the Respondent lacks rights to or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent did not submit a Response or attempt to demonstrate any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and the Panel draws adverse inferences from this failure, where appropriate, in accordance with the Rules, paragraph 14(b). The Panel finds the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name and that paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy is satisfied. The Panel concludes that the Respondent deliberately chose to include the Complainant’s SANMINA trademark in the disputed domain name, in order to achieve
page 4 commercial gain by misleading third parties, and that such use cannot be considered as a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. The Panel further finds that the disputed domain name carries a high risk of implied affiliation with the Complainant. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.5.1. Given the above, the Panel finds that the Complainant has made out an unrebutted prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirement under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy states that any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, shall be considered evidence of the registration and use of a disputed domain name in bad faith: (i) circumstances indicating that the respondent registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant (the owner of the trademark or service mark) or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; (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; (iii) the respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or (iv) by using the domain name, the respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website or other online 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 its website or location. In this case, the Complainant submits that at the date of registration of the disputed domain name the Respondent knew or should have known of the Complainant’s mark SANMINA considering the renown of the Complainant’s prior mark and the website content targeting the Complainant’s logos and products. The Panel takes note of the construction of the disputed domain name, which incorporates in its entirety the SANMINA mark, as well as the fact that the disputed domain name directs to a website that contains the Complainant’s logo. The Panel is satisfied that by directing the disputed domain name to a commercial website with the Complainant’s logo and content, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its website or of the products on its website. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1.4. Under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, this circumstance shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith. Having considered the Complainant’s submissions and in the absence of a Response, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and 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 name be transferred to the Complainant. /Daniel Peña/ Daniel Peña Sole Panelist Date: November 7, 2024
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy