Bestbuytechnicalsupport.org

The timeline behind bestbuytechnicalsupport.org

Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.

Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.

DECISION BBY Solutions, Inc. v. Kunal Singh Claim Number: FA1602001661310 PARTIES Complainant is BBY Solutions, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Matthew Mlsna Mlsna of BBY Solutions, Inc., Minnesota, USA. Respondent is Kunal Singh (“Respondent”), Alaska, USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <bestbuytechnicalsupport.org>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC. PANEL The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding. David A. Einhorn appointed as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on February 17, 2016; the Forum received payment on February 17, 2016. On February 17, 2016, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <bestbuytechnicalsupport.org> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, LLC registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”). On February 18, 2016, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 9, 2016 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@bestbuytechnicalsupport.org. Also on February 18, 2016, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts. Having received no response from Respondent, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On March 16, 2016, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed David A. Einhorn as Panelist. Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent. RELIEF SOUGHT Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Complainant uses the BEST BUY mark in connection with its business offering consumer electronics and appliances. Complainant has registered the BEST BUY mark with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 3,416,626, reg. Apr. 29, 2008), which demonstrates rights in the mark. Respondent’s <bestbuytechnicalsupport.org> domain name is confusingly similar to the BEST BUY mark as it incorporates the mark in its entirety, while eliminating the spacing between words and adding the descriptive words “technicalsupport”. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <bestbuytechnicalsupport.org> domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Further, Respondent is making neither a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use through the <bestbuytechnicalsupport.org> domain name. Rather, the domain name resolves to a website containing competing services from which Respondent presumably makes profits. Respondent is using the <bestbuytechnicalsupport.org> domain name in bad faith. Respondent has attempted to attract Internet users to its site for commercial gain by creating confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the website. Further, Respondent had notice of the BEST BUY mark and Complainant’s rights therein because of the mark’s fame, notoriety, multiple trademark registrations, and longtime use. B. Respondent Respondent did not submit a response. The Panel notes that the <bestbuytechnicalsupport.org> domain name was registered on June 1, 2015. FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable." Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred: (1) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and (2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and (3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations and inferences set forth in the Complaint as true unless the evidence is clearly contradictory. See Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 31, 2000) (holding that the respondent’s failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of the complaint to be deemed true); see also Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009 (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000) (“In the absence of a response, it is appropriate to accept as true all allegations of the Complaint.”). Identical and/or Confusingly Similar Complainant uses the BEST BUY mark in connection with its business in which it offers consumer electronics and appliances. Complainant claims to have registered the BEST BUY mark with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 3,416,626, reg. Apr. 29, 2008), arguing such registrations demonstrate rights in a mark. The Panel agrees. See AOL LLC v. AIM Profiles, FA 964479 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 20, 2007) (“Complainant has established rights in the AIM mark through its use and federal trademark registrations for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”). Next, Complainant argues that Respondent’s <bestbuytechnicalsupport.org> domain name is confusingly similar to the BEST BUY mark, as it incorporates the mark in its entirety while eliminating the spacing between words and adding the descriptive words “technicalsupport”. Panels have found such alterations to a mark insufficient in overcoming a finding of confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Kohler Co. v. Curley, FA 890812 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 5, 2007) (finding confusing similarity where <kohlerbaths.com>, the disputed domain name, contained the complainant’s mark in its entirety adding “the descriptive term ‘baths,’ which is an obvious allusion to complainant’s business.”). The Panel agrees that Respondent’s <bestbuytechnicalsupport.org> domain name is confusingly similar to the BEST BUY mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant argues that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <bestbuytechnicalsupport.org> domain name. First, Complainant asserts that there is no relationship, affiliation, connection, endorsement or association with Best Buy and that Respondent has never requested or received any authorization, permission, or license from Best Buy to use the BEST BUY mark in any way. Next, Complainant asserts that Respondent has never been commonly known by the domain name. The Panel notes that the WHOIS information regarding the disputed domain name lists “Kunal Singh” as registrant of record. The Panel further notes that Respondent has failed to submit a response in this proceeding. Therefore, in light of the available evidence, this Panel agrees that there is no basis to find Respondent commonly known by the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Coppertown Drive-Thru Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 17, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <coppertown.com> domain name where there was no evidence in the record, including the WHOIS information, suggesting that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name). Complainant also argues that Respondent is making neither a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use through the <bestbuytechnicalsupport.org> domain name. Rather, Complainant contends that the domain name resolves to a website that offers competing technical support services. The Panel notes that Complainant has provided a screenshot of the resolving webpage and shows that said webpage contains the messages, “Technical Support Plans”, “Frequently Asked Questions”, “About Best Buy”, and “Need Instant Support?”. Panels have found such use by a respondent to evince neither a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See Compania Mexicana de Aviacion, S.A. de C.V. v. Bigfoot Ventures LLC, FA 1195961 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 14, 2008) (holding that the respondent had not demonstrated a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use when “the website resolving from the disputed domain name displays links to travel products and services, which directly compete with Complainant’s business”). Therefore, this Panel agrees that Respondent’s <bestbuytechnicalsupport.org> domain name constitutes neither a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) & (iii). Thus, Complainant has also satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Registration and Use in Bad Faith Complainant argues that Respondent has attempted to attract Internet uses to its site for commercial gain by creating confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the website. Complainant further argues that a likelihood of confusion exists because the domain name resolves to a webpage that displays competing tech support services. Prior panels have found, and this Panel agrees, that the use of a domain name in such a manner can amount to bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Scholastic Inc. v. Applied Software Solutions, Inc., D2000-1629 (WIPO Mar. 15, 2001) (finding bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) because the respondent initially used the disputed domain name to sell educational services that targeted the complainant’s market). Therefore, the Panel finds bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). Further, Complainant contends that in light of the fame and notoriety of Complainant’s BEST BUY mark, it would be unlikely that Respondent could have registered the <bestbuytechnicalsupport.org> domain name without knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the mark. The Panel infers that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the mark prior to registering the disputed domain name, which constitutes evidence of bad faith registration under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Univision Comm’cns Inc. v. Norte, FA 1000079 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug.16, 2007) (rejecting the respondent’s contention that it did not register the disputed domain name in bad faith since the panel found that the respondent had knowledge of the complainant’s rights in the UNIVISION mark when registering the disputed domain name). Thus, Complainant has also satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). DECISION Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED. Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <bestbuytechnicalsupport.org> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. David A. Einhorn, Panelist Dated: March 28, 2016 Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page. Click Here to return to our Home Page

Source of record: FORUM . Reproduced for research; FORUM is the authoritative source.