Boxappliances.co

The timeline behind boxappliances.co

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.

NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM DECISION West Coast Parts Distributing d/b/a Box Appliance v. Oleksandr Kliuiev Claim Number: FA2409002115369 PARTIES Complainant is West Coast Parts Distributing d/b/a Box Appliance ("Complainant"), represented by Carolyn Juarez of Neugeboren O'Dowd PC, Colorado, USA. Respondent is Oleksandr Kliuiev ("Respondent"), Ukraine. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <boxappliances.co>, ('the Domain Name') registered with Cloudflare, Inc. PANEL The undersigned certifies that they have acted independently and impartially and to the best of their knowledge have no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding. Dawn Osborne as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on September 12, 2024; Forum received payment on September 12, 2024. On September 15, 2024, Cloudflare, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <boxappliances.co> Domain Name is registered with Cloudflare, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Cloudflare, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Cloudflare, Inc. 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 September 23, 2024, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of October 15, 2024 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@boxappliances.co. Also on September 23, 2024, 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, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On October 16, 2024 pursuant to Complainant's payment of the fee amount required to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Dawn Osborne as Panelist. Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that 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, 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's contentions as substantiated by the evidence can be summarised as follows: The Complainant is the owner of the trade mark BOX APPLIANCE, registered, inter alia, in the USA for services relating to the installation, maintenance and repair of appliances since 2021. The Domain Name registered by the Respondent in 2024 is confusingly similar to the Complainant's mark for the purposes of the Policy adding a single letter 's' and the ccTLD .co indicating Colombia, but commonly used to indicate 'company'. Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name and has not been authorised by the Complainant to use the Complainant's mark. The Domain Name has been used to point to a site that uses the Complainant's mark spelled correctly in its masthead to offer competing services and to represent a connection or authorisation by the Complainant. Following customer contact the Respondent has continued to represent it is associated with the Complainant by using the BOX APPLIANCE mark spelled correctly on invoices and in a text message. This is not a bona fide offering of services or a non commercial legitimate fair use. It is registration and use in bad faith impersonating the Complainant and likely phishing. The Panel notes the allegation that the Respondent is connected to another series of bait and switch cases, however the evidence alleged to show common physical addresses between the Respondent and the perpetrator of those cases was not sufficiently explained. However, nothing turns on this. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS The Complainant is the owner of the trade mark BOX APPLIANCE, registered, inter alia, in the USA for services relating to the installation, maintenance and repair of appliances since 2021. The Domain Name registered by the Respondent in 2024 has been used to point to a site that uses the Complainant's mark spelled correctly in its masthead to offer competing services and to represent a connection or authorisation by the Complainant. Following customer contact the Respondent continues to represent it is associated with the Complainant by using the BOX APPLIANCE mark spelled correctly on invoices and in a text message. DISCUSSION Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and 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 Domain Name consists of the Complainant's BOX APPLIANCE mark (which is registered, inter alia, in USA for services relating to the installation, maintenance and repair of appliances since 2021), the single letter 's' and the ccTLD .co. The Panel agrees that misspellings such the addition of an extra letter 's' does not prevent confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the Complainant's trade mark pursuant to the Policy. See Google, Inc. v. DktBot.org, FA 286993 (Forum Aug. 4, 2004) ("The mere addition of a single letter to the complainant's mark does not remove the respondent's domain names from the realm of confusing similarity in relation to the complainant's mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)."). The ccTLD .co does not serve to distinguish a Domain Name from a Complainant's mark. See Thomson Reuters Global Resources v Matthew Krawitz, FA 1548336 (Forum Apr. 21, 2014) ("Respondent adds the country-code top-level domain ("ccTLD") ".co" to Complainant's mark in the disputed domain name, which also fails to distinguish the domain name from Complainant's mark."). Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's registered mark. As such the Panel holds that Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been satisfied. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant has not authorised the use of its mark. There is no evidence or reason to suggest the Respondent is, in fact, commonly known by the Domain Name. See Alaska Air Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines v. Song Bin, FA 1574905 (Forum Sept. 17, 2014) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name as demonstrated by the WHOIS information and based on the fact that the complainant had not licensed or authorized the respondent to use its ALASKA AIRLINES mark). The use is commercial and so cannot be non commercial legitimate fair use. The web site attached to the Domain Name used the Complainant's mark in its masthead spelled correctly to offer competing services and suggest that it is a site operated by or authorised by the Complainant when it is not. Following customer contact the Respondent has continued to represent it is associated with the Complainant by using the BOX APPLIANCE mark spelled correctly on invoices and in a text message. The Panel finds this use is deceptive and confusing. As such it cannot amount to the bona fide offering of goods and services. (See Am. Intl Group Inc v Benjamin, FA 944242 (Forum May 11, 2007) finding that the Respondent's use of a confusingly similar domain name to compete with the Complainant's business did not constitute a bona fide use of goods and services.) Further the Domain Name appears to be a typosquatting registration differing by only one letter 's' from the Complainant's mark and domain name, and taking advantage of the similarity of .co to .com. Typosquatting is an indication of a lack of rights or legitimate interests. See Chegg Inc. v. yang qijin, FA 1610050 (Forum Apr. 23, 2015) ("Users might mistakenly reach Respondent's resolving website by misspelling Complainant's mark. Taking advantage of Internet users' typographical errors, known as typosquatting, demonstrates a respondent's lack of rights or legitimate interests under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)."). The Respondent has not answered the Complaint or rebutted the prima facie case evidenced by the Complainant as set out herein. As such the Panelist finds that the Respondent does not have rights or a legitimate interest in the Domain Name and that the Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy. Registration and Use in Bad Faith The Domain Name appears to be a typosquatting registation as discussed above. Typosquatting is bad faith per se and shows actual knowledge of the Complainant. See Cost Plus Management Services, Inc. v. xushuaiwei, FA 1800036 (Forum Sep. 7, 2018) ("Typosquatting itself is evidence of relevant bad faith registration and use."). In the opinion of the panelist the use made of the Domain Name in relation to the Respondent's site is confusing and disruptive in that visitors to the site might reasonably believe it is connected to or approved by the Complainant as it offers competing services under the Complainant's mark spelled correctly to represent falsely that it is the Complainant in a manifest attempt to deceive. Accordingly, the Panel also holds that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion, inter alia, with the Complainant's trade mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the web site and services offered on it, likely to disrupt the business of the Complainant. (See Asbury Auto Group Inc v Tex. Int'l Prop Assocs, FA 958542 (Forum May 29, 2007) finding that the respondent's use of the disputed domain name to compete with the complainant's business would likely lead to confusion amongst Internet users as to the sponsorship or affiliation of a competing business and was therefore evidence of bad faith and use). As such, the Panelist believes that the Complainant has made out its case that the Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith and has satisfied the third limb of the Policy under Paragraphs 4(b)(iii) and (iv). 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 <boxappliances.co> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Dawn Osborne, Panelist Dated: October 16, 2024 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.