Dell-customersupport.com

The timeline behind dell-customersupport.com

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. Mohit Sharma Claim Number: FA1908001855505 PARTIES Complainant is Dell Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Danae T. Robinson of Pirkey Barber PLLC, Texas, USA. Respondent is Mohit Sharma (“Respondent”), India. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <dell-customersupport.com>, registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com. 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. Petter Rindforth as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on August 2, 2019; the Forum received payment on August 2, 2019. On August 5, 2019, PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <dell-customersupport.com> domain name is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com 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 August 5, 2019, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 26, 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@dell-customersupport.com. Also on August 5, 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 August 27, 2019, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Petter Rindforth 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 The Complainant operates in the computer and computer-related products and services. Complainant has rights in the DELL trademark based upon its registration of the trademark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 1,860,272, registered Oct. 25, 1994). Respondent’s <dell-customersupport.com> domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s DELL trademark because it wholly incorporates Complainant’s DELL trademark, and merely adds the generic or descriptive terms “customer” and “support” as well as the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”). Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the <dell-customersupport.com> domain name. Respondent is not authorized or licensed to use Complainant’s DELL trademark. Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, Respondent uses the disputed domain name’s resolving webpage to directly compete with Complainant and potentially engage in phishing. Respondent registered and uses the <dell-customersupport.com> domain name in bad faith. Respondent attempts to attract, for commercial gain, users to the disputed domain name where Respondent offers competing services and potentially engages in phishing. Respondent also registered the disputed domain name under a privacy service. Furthermore, Respondent’s inclusion of a disclaimer on the disputed domain name’s resolving webpage does not mitigate a finding of bad faith. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS The Complainant is the owner of the following U.S. trademark registrations: No. 1,860,272 DELL (fig), registered October 25, 1994 for goods in class 9; No. 2,236,785 DELL (word), registered April 6, 1999 for services in class 40; No. 2,794,705 DELL (word), registered December 16, 2003 for goods in class 9; No. 2,806,769 DELL (word), registered January 20, 2004 for services in class 37; No. 2,806,770 DELL (word), registered January 20, 2004 for services in class 42; No. 2,808,852 DELL (word), registered January 27, 2004 for goods in class 2; and No. 3,215,023 DELL (fig), registered March 6, 2007 for goods and services in classes 2, 9, 36, 37, 40 and 42. The disputed domain <dell-customersupport.com> name was registered on July 2, 2019. 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 Complainant claims to have rights in the DELL trademark based upon its registration of the trademark with the USPTO. Registration of a trademark with the USPTO is sufficient to establish rights in the trademark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Liberty Global Logistics, LLC v. damilola emmanuel / tovary services limited, FA 1738536 (Forum Aug. 4, 2017) (“Registration of a mark with the USPTO sufficiently establishes the required rights in the mark for purposes of the Policy.”). Here, Complainant has provided the Panel with copies of its US registrations for the DELL trademark (e.g., Reg. No. 1,860,272, registered Oct. 25, 1994). Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant has adequately shown rights in the DELL trademark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Next, Complainant argues that Respondent’s <dell-customersupport.com> domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark as it wholly incorporates the DELL trademark while adding the generic or descriptive terms “customer” and “support” as well as the “.com” gTLD. The addition of generic or descriptive terms and a gTLD to a complainant’s trademark have been found insufficient to withstand a test of confusing similarity pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Wiluna Holdings, LLC v. Edna Sherman, FA 1652781 (Forum Jan. 22, 2016) (finding the addition of a generic term and gTLD is insufficient in distinguishing a disputed domain name from a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)); see also The Toronto-Dominion Bank v. George Whitehead, FA 1784412 (Forum June 11, 2018) (“[S]light differences between domain names and registered marks, such as the addition of words that describe the goods or services in connection with the mark and gTLDs, do not distinguish the domain name from the mark incorporated therein per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”). In this case, the addition “customersupport”, direcrtly after the trademark DELL in the domain name, only indicates clearly that the domain namme refers to a customer service provided by the Complainant in relation to the trademark DELL. Therefore, the Panel agrees with Complainant and finds that Respondent’s disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s DELL trademark. Rights or Legitimate Interests Once the Complainant makes a prima facie case in support of its allegations in respect of the second element of the Policy, the burden shifts to the Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). 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”). Complainant argues that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the <dell-customersupport.com> domain name because Respondent is not authorized or licensed to use Complainant’s DELL trademark. WHOIS information can support a finding that the respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. See Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. LY Ta, FA 1789106 (Forum June 21, 2018) (concluding a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name where the complainant asserted it did not authorize the respondent to use the mark, and the relevant WHOIS information indicated the respondent is not commonly known by the domain name). Additionally, lack of authorization to use a complainant’s trademark may support a finding that the respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Indeed, Inc. v. Ankit Bhardwaj / Recruiter, FA 1739470 (Forum Aug. 3, 2017) (”Respondent lacks both rights and legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant’s trademark in any capacity and, as discussed below, there are no Policy ¶4(c) circumstances from which the Panel might find that Respondent has rights or interests in respect of the at-issue domain name.”). The relevant WHOIS information for Respondent indicates that Respondent is known as “Mohit Sharma” and no information of the record indicates that Respondent was authorized to use the Complainant’s DELL trademark. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). Complainant further argues that Respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interests in the <dell-customersupport.com> domain name is demonstrated by its failure to use the domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Complainant contends instead that the disputed domain name resolves to a competing website. Such use is not indicative of rights or legitimate interests per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See General Motors LLC v. MIKE LEE, FA 1659965 (Forum Mar. 10, 2016) (finding that “use of a domain to sell products and/or services that compete directly with a complainant’s business does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”). Specifically, Complainant contends that the domain name resolves to a website that displays images of Complainant’s trademark and offers tech support, repair and maintenance services for Complainant’s products. Complainant argues that the website gives the false impression that it is affiliated with, and authorized by, Complainant. The Panel therefore determines that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <dell-customersupport.com> domain name. Next, Complainant argues that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use because Respondent uses the <dell-customersupport.com> domain name’s resolving webpage to engage in phishing. Passing off in furtherance of a phishing scheme is not considered a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See DaVita Inc. v. Cynthia Rochelo, FA 1738034 (Forum July 20, 2017) (”Passing off in furtherance of a phishing scheme is not considered a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use.”). Here, Complainant provides a screenshot of the disputed domain name’s resolving “Contact Us” webpage that allows users to input their personal information. The Panel agrees, and finds that Respondent has failed to provide a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). Registration and Use in Bad Faith Complainant claims that Respondent’s use of the <dell-customersupport.com> domain name to pass off as Complainant in order to compete with Complainant’s business demonstrates that Respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith. Use of a domain name to create a false impression of affiliation with a complainant in order to compete with and disrupt the complainant’s business is behavior indicative of bad faith registration and use per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Am. Int’l Group, Inc. v. Busby, FA 156251 (Forum May 30, 2003) (finding that the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith where the respondent hosted a website that “duplicated Complainant’s mark and logo, giving every appearance of being associated or affiliated with Complainant’s business . . . to perpetrate a fraud upon individual shareholders who respected the goodwill surrounding the AIG mark”); Citadel LLC and its related entity, KCG IP Holdings, LLC v. Joel Lespinasse / Radius Group, FA1409001579141 (Forum Oct. 15, 2014) (“Here, the Panel finds evidence of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) bad faith as Respondent has used the confusingly similar domain name to promote its own financial management and consulting services in competition with Complainant.”). As noted above, the Complainant claims the at-issue domain name resolves to website that displays images of Complainant’s trademark and offers tech support, repair and maintenance services for Complainant’s products. The Panel therefore finds that Respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). Next, Complainant argues Respondent registered and uses the <dell-customersupport.com> domain name in bad faith because Respondent attempts to attract, for commercial gain, users to the disputed domain name where engages in phishing. Use of a domain name to phish for Internet users’ personal information is evidence of bad faith. See United States Postal Service v. kyle javier, FA 1787265 (Forum June 12, 2018) (“Use of a domain name to phish for Internet users’ personal information is evidence of bad faith.”). Again, as noted above, the Complainant provides screenshots of the disputed domain name’s resolving webpage that shows this use. Based on that, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the <dell-customersupport.com> domain name in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). Finally, the Respondent includes a disclaimer on the disputed domain name’s resolving webpage. Use of a disclaimer may not sufficiently mitigate a finding of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Continental Airlines, Inc. v. Vartanian, FA 1106528 (Forum Dec. 26, 2007) (“Respondent’s use of a disclaimer does note mitigate a finding of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)”). Here, Complainant provides a screenshot of the disputed domain name’s resolving webpage featuring the disclaimer that generally identifies the Respondent as “…one of the stunning third party technical support service provider…” It is the Panel’s opinion that such “disclaimer” rather – falsely – indicates that the provider is closely related to the Complainant by some license or other co-operation agreement, thereby giving the users/customers a false impression of affiliation with the Complainant. Therefore, the Panel agrees that Respondent’s disclaimer does not mitigate a finding of bad faith under 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 <dell-customersupport.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Petter Rindforth, Panelist Dated: September 8, 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.