ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Mediacom Communications Corporation v. Michael Nava, Brand Boogie LLC Case No. DIO2024-0014 1. The Parties The Complainant is Mediacom Communications Corporation, United States of America (“United States”), represented Dentons US LLP, United States. The Respondent is Michael Nava, Brand Boogie LLC, United States of America. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name is registered with Dynadot Inc (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 24, and May 28, 2024. On May 29, 2024, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On May 30, 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 (Redacted for Privacy) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on May 30, 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 June 3, 2024. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the .IO Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”), the Rules for .IO Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for .IO 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 June 4, 2024. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was June 24, 2024. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on June 25, 2024.
page 2 The Center appointed Evan D. Brown as the sole panelist in this matter on July 3, 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 in the business of providing with a number of services including cable television transmission, high-speed Internet and telephone services, and advertising services. It owns the trademark MEDIACOM, for which it enjoys the benefits of registration (e.g., United States Reg. No. 2,544,829, registered on March 5, 2002). According to the WhoIs records, the disputed domain name was registered on August 10, 2023. The Respondent is using the disputed domain name in connection with a parked page provided by Dan.com showing that the disputed domain name is for sale for USD 5,988. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark; that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 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 or is being used in bad faith. The Panel finds that all three of these elements have been met in this case. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar This first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7.1 The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. Id. This element requires the Panel to consider two issues: first, whether the Complainant has rights in a relevant mark; and second, whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that mark. A registered trademark provides a clear indication that the rights in the mark shown on the trademark certificate belong to its respective owner. See Advance Magazine Publishers Inc., Les Publications Conde Nast S.A. v. Voguechen, WIPO Case No. D2014-0657. The Complainant has demonstrated its rights in the MEDIACOM mark by providing evidence of its trademark registrations. 1Given the similarities between the .IO Policy and Rules and the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“UDRP”) and Rules, the Panel finds UDRP precedent to be relevant to this case.
page 3 The disputed domain name incorporates the MEDIACOM mark in its entirety. This is sufficient for showing confusing similarity under the Policy. The Panel finds that the Complainant has established this first element under the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Panel evaluates this element of the Policy by first looking to see whether the Complainant has made a prima facie showing that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. If the Complainant makes that showing, the burden of production of demonstrating rights or legitimate interests shifts to the Respondent (with the burden of proof always remaining with the Complainant). See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1; AXA SA v. Huade Wang, WIPO Case No. D2022-1289. On this point, the Complainant asserts, among other things, that: (1) there is no evidence to show that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name, (2) the Respondent has not made legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, and (3) the Respondent has not made use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. The Complainant asserts that instead, the Respondent uses the disputed domain name to redirect users to a website which is offering the disputed domain for sale. The Panel finds that the Complainant has made the required prima facie showing. The Panel has considered the possibility that the disputed domain name may be seen as a portmanteau of “media” and “communications” but no such argument has been made by the Respondent and in light of the Complainant’s repute and the fact that there is no Response and the disputed domain name is merely offered for sale, the Panel is left with the fact that the Respondent has not presented evidence to overcome this prima facie showing. And nothing in the record otherwise tilts the balance in the Respondent's favor. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established this second element under the Policy. C. Registered or Used in Bad Faith The Panel likewise finds that the Respondent registered and has used the disputed domain name in bad faith. Absent any Response from the Respondent providing any explanation of potential good faith use, the Panel credits the Complainant's assertions that (1) the Respondent registered the disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the disputed domain name registration to the Complainant or to a competitor of the Complainant for valuable consideration in excess of the Respondent's documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the disputed domain name (i.e., by offering the disputed domain name for sale), (2) the Respondent registered the disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of the Complainant, and (3) 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. Accordingly, the Complainant has established this third element under 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. /Evan D. Brown/ Evan D. Brown Sole Panelist Date: July 17, 2024
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy