Dellteknikservis.xyz

The timeline behind dellteknikservis.xyz

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 Dell Inc. v. Tarkan Dogu / Bemsis Claim Number: FA1906001847708 PARTIES Complainant is Dell Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Danae T. Robinson of Pirkey Barber PLLC, Texas, USA. Respondent is Tarkan Dogu / Bemsis (“Respondent”), Turkey. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <dellteknikservis.xyz> registered with Nics Telekomunikasyon A.S. 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. The Honourable Neil Anthony Brown QC as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on June 13, 2019; the Forum received payment on June 13, 2019. On June 21, 2019, Nics Telekomunikasyon A.S. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <dellteknikservis.xyz> domain name is registered with Nics Telekomunikasyon A.S. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Nics Telekomunikasyon A.S. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Nics Telekomunikasyon A.S. 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 June 21, 2019, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 11, 2019 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@dellteknikservis.xyz. Also on June 21, 2019, 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 July 16, 2019, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed The Honourable Neil Anthony Brown QC 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 made the following contentions. Complainant is a world leader in computers, computer accessories, and other computer-related products and services. Complainant has rights in the DELL mark through its registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 2,236,785, registered Apr. 6, 1999). See Compl. Ex. C. Respondent’s <dellteknikservis.xyz> domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark as it tacks on the generic phrase “teknis servis” (or “technical service” in English) and the “.xyz” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”). Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <dellteknikservis.xyz> domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Complainant authorized, licensed, or otherwise permitted Respondent to use the mark. Respondent also does not use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, Respondent attempts to pass off as Complainant and offer competing technical support services. See Compl. Ex. D. Respondent registered and uses the <dellteknikservis.xyz> domain name in bad faith. Respondent intentionally attempts to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s website and services offered at Respondent’s website. See Compl. Ex. D. Additionally, it is clear that Respondent knew of Complainant’s famous DELL mark based on Respondent’s use of the domain name to host a website which uses the DELL logo, displays images of Complainant’s products, offers repair and maintenance services for Complainant’s products, and targets Complainant’s customers. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS 1. Complainant is a United States company that is a world leader in computers, computer accessories, and other computer-related products and services. 2. Complainant has established its trademark rights in the DELL mark through its registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 2,236,785, registered Apr. 6, 1999). 3. Respondent registered the <dellteknikservis.xyz> domain name on May 8, 2019. 4. Respondent has attempted to pass itself off as Complainant and to offer competing technical support services. 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 set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at ¶ 4.3; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (“Because Complainant did not produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations [. . .] the Panel finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint”). Identical and/or Confusingly Similar The first question that arises is whether Complainant has rights in a trademark or service mark on which it may rely. Complainant submits that it has rights in the DELL mark through its registration of the mark with the USPTO (e.g. Reg. No. 2,236,785, registered Apr. 6, 1999). See Compl. Ex. C. Registration of a mark with the USPTO sufficiently confers a complainant’s rights in a mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See DIRECTV, LLC v. The Pearline Group, FA 1818749 (Forum Dec. 30, 2018) (“Complainant’s ownership of a USPTO registration for DIRECTV demonstrate its rights in such mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”). Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has established rights in the DELL mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). The next question that arises is whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s DELL mark. Complainant argues that Respondent’s <dellteknikservis.xyz> domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark as it tacks on the generic phrase “teknis servis” (or “technical service” in English) and the “.xyz” gTLD. Similar changes in a registered mark have failed to distinguish a domain name sufficiently for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See MTD Products Inc v J Randall Shank, FA 1783050 (Forum June 27, 2018) (“The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark as it wholly incorporates the CUB CADET mark before appending the generic terms ‘genuine’ and ‘parts’ as well as the ‘.com’ gTLD.”). The Panel therefore finds that the <dellteknikservis.xyz> domain name is confusingly similar to the DELL mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Complainant has thus made out the first of the three elements that it must establish. Rights or Legitimate Interests It is now well established that Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)); see also Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) (“Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests”). The Panel finds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case that arises from the following considerations: (a) Respondent has chosen to take Complainant’s DELL trademark and to use it in its domain name, adding the generic phrase “teknis servis” (or “technical service” in English) that does not negate the confusing similarity with Complainant’s trademark; (b) Respondent registered the <dellteknikservis.xyz> domain name on May 8, 2019; (c) Respondent has attempted to pass itself off as Complainant and to offer competing technical support services; (d) Respondent has engaged in these activities without the consent or approval of Complainant; (e) Complainant contends that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <dellteknikservis.xyz> domain name as Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Complainant authorized, licensed, or otherwise permitted Respondent to use the mark. Relevant information includes the WHOIS, assertions by a complainant regarding the nature of its relationship with a respondent, and other evidence in the record to support these assertions. See Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Suzen Khan / Nancy Jain / Andrew Stanzy, FA 1741129 (Forum Aug. 16, 2017) (finding that respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names when the identifying information provided by WHOIS was unrelated to the domain names or respondent’s use of the same); see also Google LLC v. Bhawana Chandel / Admission Virus, FA 1799694 (Forum Sep. 4, 2018) (concluding that Respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name where “the WHOIS of record identifies the Respondent as “Bhawana Chandel,” and no information in the record shows that Respondent was authorized to use Complainant’s mark in any way.”). The WHOIS identifies “Tarkan Dogu c/o Bemsis” as the registrant, and nothing in the record indicates that Complainant authorized Respondent to use the mark for any purpose. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the <dellteknikservis.xyz> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii); (f) Complainant argues that Respondent attempts to pass itself off as Complainant and offer competing technical support services. Using a confusingly similar domain name to pass off as a complainant and offer competing services can evince a failure to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See BALENCIAGA SA v. ling lin, FA 1768542 (Forum Feb. 16, 2018) (“The disputed domain names incorporate Complainant's registered mark, and are being used for websites that prominently display Complainant's mark and logo, along with apparent images of Complainant's products, offering them for sale at discounted prices. The sites do not disclaim any connection with Complainant, and in fact seem to be designed to create an appearance of such a connection. Such use does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests.”). Complainant provides a screenshot of the resolving webpage which displays the DELL mark and logo and purports to offer “Dell Notebook Technical Service.” See Compl. Ex. D. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent attempts to pass itself off as Complainant and offer competing services, failing to use the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). All of these matters go to make out the prima facie case against Respondent. As Respondent has not filed a Response or attempted by any other means to rebut the prima facie case against it, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Complainant has thus made out the second of the three elements that it must establish. Registration and Use in Bad Faith It is clear that to establish bad faith for the purposes of the Policy, Complainant must show that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith and has been used in bad faith. It is also clear that the criteria set out in Policy ¶ 4(b) for establishing bad faith are not exclusive, but that Complainants in UDRP proceedings may also rely on conduct that is bad faith within the generally accepted meaning of that expression. Having regard to those principles, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith. That is so for the following reasons. First, Complainant submits that Respondent intentionally attempts to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s website and services offered at Respondent’s website. Using a confusingly similar domain name to trade upon the goodwill of a complainant’s mark for commercial gain can evince bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Bittrex, Inc. v. Wuxi Yilian LLC, FA 1760517 (Forum Dec. 27, 2017) (finding bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where “Respondent registered and uses the <lbittrex.com> domain name in bad faith by directing Internet users to a website that mimics Complainant’s own website in order to confuse users into believing that Respondent is Complainant, or is otherwise affiliated or associated with Complainant.”); see also Xylem Inc. and Xylem IP Holdings LLC v. YinSi BaoHu YiKaiQi, FA1504001612750 (Forum May 13, 2015) (“The Panel agrees that Respondent’s use of the website to display products similar to Complainant’s, imputes intent to attract Internet users for commercial gain, and finds bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).”). As noted above, Complainant provides a screenshot of the resolving webpage which displays the DELL mark and logo and purports to offer “Dell Notebook Technical Service.” See Compl. Ex. D. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent attempted to benefit commercially off Complainant’s mark in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). Secondly, Complainant argues that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the DELL mark at the time of registering the <dellteknikservis.xyz> domain name. Actual knowledge of a complainant's rights in a mark prior to registering a confusingly similar domain name can evince bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See iFinex Inc. v. xu shuaiwei, FA 1760249 (Forum Jan. 1, 2018) (“Respondent’s prior knowledge is evident from the notoriety of Complainant’s BITFINEX trademark as well as from Respondent’s use of its trademark laden domain name to direct internet traffic to a website which is a direct competitor of Complainant”). Complainant contends that Respondent’s knowledge can be inferred based on Respondent’s use of the domain name to host a website which uses the DELL logo, displays images of Complainant’s products, offers repair and maintenance services for Complainant’s products, and targets Complainant’s customers. See Compl. Ex. D. The Panel agrees with Complainant and finds that Respondent did have actual knowledge of Complainant’s mark, demonstrating bad faith registration under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). Thirdly, in addition and having regard to the totality of the evidence, the Panel finds that, in view of Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name using the DELL mark and in view of the conduct that Respondent has engaged in when using the disputed domain name, Respondent registered and used it in bad faith within the generally accepted meaning of that expression. Complainant has thus made out the third of the three elements that it must establish. 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 <dellteknikservis.xyz> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. The Honourable Neil Anthony Brown QC Panelist Dated: July 17, 2019 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.