Agilentotdr.com

The timeline behind agilentotdr.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 Agilent Technologies, Inc. v. chao meng / mengchao Claim Number: FA2202001986010 PARTIES Complainant is Agilent Technologies, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Julie A. Kent of Holland & Hart LLP, Colorado, USA. Respondent is chao meng / mengchao (“Respondent”), China. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <agilentotdr.com>, registered with GMO Internet, Inc. d/b/a Onamae.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. Alan L. Limbury, as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on February 25, 2022. The Forum received payment on February 25, 2022. On March 2, 2022, GMO Internet, Inc. d/b/a Onamae.com confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <agilentotdr.com> domain name is registered with GMO Internet, Inc. d/b/a Onamae.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GMO Internet, Inc. d/b/a Onamae.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the GMO Internet, Inc. d/b/a Onamae.com registration agreement, which is in Japanese, 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 March 8, 2022, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including an English and Japanese language Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 28, 2022 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@agilentotdr.com. Also on March 8, 2022, the English and Japanese language 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 April 4, 2022, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Alan L. Limbury 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. PRELIMINARY ISSUE: LANGUAGE OF PROCEEDING As noted, the GMO Internet, Inc. d/b/a Onamae.com registration agreement is in Japanese. Pursuant to Rule 11(a), the language of the proceeding in relation to the <agilentotdr.com> domain name shall be Japanese unless otherwise determined by the Panel, having regard to the circumstances of the proceeding. Complainant requests that the proceedings be conducted in English, saying the domain name combines Complainant’s AGILENT mark with the common name of one of Complainant’s product offerings, “OTDR”. The domain name is comprised of Latin letters and the terms AGILENT and OTDR are English-language terms with no cognizable meaning in the Japanese language. In addition, the domain name utilizes the “.com” gTLD, which primarily targets English-speaking Internet users. These circumstances satisfy the Panel that Respondent is likely to be proficient in English and that there would be no undue prejudice to Respondent if English were the language of the proceeding. Further, pursuant to Rule 11(a), the Panel determines that the language requirement has been satisfied through the English and Japanese language Written Notice of the Complaint and, absent a Response, determines that the remainder of the proceedings may be conducted in English. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Complainant is a chemical and life sciences company. Between 1987 and 2014, Complainant and its predecessor offered a line of “optical time-domain reflectometer” (OTDR) products, which are optoelectronic instruments used to characterize an optical fiber. Complainant has rights in the AGILENT mark through its registration with various trademark agencies, including the USPTO. Respondent’s <agilentotdr.com> domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark. Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <agilentotdr.com> domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name, nor has Complainant authorized or licensed Respondent to use its AGILENT mark in the domain name. Respondent does not use the domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services, nor any legitimate noncommercial or fair use, but instead hosts adult-oriented pay-per-click links on the domain name’s resolving website. Respondent registered <agilentotdr.com> domain name in bad faith with knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the AGILENT mark and uses it to disrupt Complainant’s business for commercial gain by hosting adult-oriented pay-per-click links. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant has established all the elements entitling it to relief. 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 Complainant has shown that it has rights in the AGILENT mark through numerous registrations, including with the USPTO (e.g. Reg. No. 2,643,345, registered October 29, 2002). The Panel finds Respondent’s <agilentotdr.com> domain name to be confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark as it incorporates the mark in its entirety, together with the “OTDR” acronym for “optical time-domain reflectometer”, which is insufficient to distinguish the domain name from the mark, and the inconsequential “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”), which may be ignored. Complainant has established this element. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy sets out three illustrative circumstances as examples which, if established by Respondent, shall demonstrate rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, i.e. (i) before any notice to Respondent of the dispute, the use by Respondent of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or (ii) Respondent (as an individual, business or other organization) has been commonly known by the domain name, even if Respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or (iii) Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert customers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue. The <agilentotdr.com> domain name was registered on July 17, 2021, many years after Complainant has shown that its AGILENT mark and its OTDR products had become very well-known. It resolves to a website displaying pornography. These circumstances, together with Complainant’s assertions, are sufficient to constitute a prima facie showing of absence of rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name on the part of Respondent. The evidentiary burden therefore shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the <agilentotdr.com> domain name. See JUUL Labs, Inc. v. Dryx Emerson / KMF Events LTD, FA1906001849706 (Forum July 17, 2019). Respondent has made no attempt to do so. The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name. Complainant has established this element. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out four illustrative circumstances, which, though not exclusive, shall be evidence of the registration and use of the domain name in bad faith for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, Including: (iv) by using the domain name, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on its website or location. The circumstances set out above in relation to the second element satisfy the Panel that Respondent was fully aware of Complainant’s very well-known AGILENT mark and its OTDR products when Respondent registered the <agilentotdr.com> domain name and that Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s website and of the services promoted on that website. This demonstrates registration and use in bad faith to attract users for commercial gain under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). Further, bad faith use and registration have been found where a respondent uses a complainant’s trademark in a domain name for the purpose of diverting Internet users to a pornographic website. See Loew’s Hotels, Inc. v. 志宇 赵, FA 1911542 (Forum Oct. 8, 2020) (use of a domain name to “deliver internet users to a website hosting pornographic material along with other content … demonstrates Respondent’s bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).”); Kabushiki Kaisha Toshiba d/b/a Toshiba Corp. v. Lei, FA 1909237 (Forum Sept. 21, 2020) (use of “domain name to divert internet users to a website hosting pornographic material along with other content.”). Complainant has established this element. DECISION Complainant having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED. Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <agilentotdr.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Alan L. Limbury, Panelist Dated: April 7, 2022 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.