Thepurplepower.com

The timeline behind thepurplepower.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.

NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM DECISION Purple Power, Inc. v. Guo Xing Claim Number: FA2501002133153 PARTIES Complainant is Purple Power, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Bryan L. Baysinger of Maynard Nexsen, PC, South Carolina, USA. Respondent is Guo Xing ("Respondent"), China. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <thepurplepower.com>, registered with eName Technology Co., Ltd. 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. James Bridgeman SC as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on January 2, 2025; Forum received payment on January 2, 2025. On January 9, 2025, eName Technology Co., Ltd. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <thepurplepower.com> domain name is registered with eName Technology Co., Ltd. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. eName Technology Co., Ltd. has verified that Respondent is bound by the eName Technology Co., Ltd. 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 January 13, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Chinese and English Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 3, 2025 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@thepurplepower.com. Also on January 13, 2025, the Chinese and English 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 in Chinese and English. On February 4, 2025 pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed James Bridgeman SC 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 disputed domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PRELIMINARY ISSUE: LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDING The Registrar has confirmed that the language of the Registration Agreement for the disputed domain name is Chinese. Complainant requests that the administrative language of the proceeding be in English. In support of this request, Complainant argues that Respondent is able to understand and communicate in the English language as shown by the fact that the disputed domain name is composed of three English words ("the", "purple," and "power"), and furthermore the content posted on Respondent's website to which the disputed domain name resolves appears entirely in the English language. Furthermore, it is contended that many cases under the Policy have been won against Respondent relating to English-language domain names and these cases have proceeded in English. (See DICK'S Sporting Goods, Inc. and American Sports Licensing, LLC v. Guo Xing, FA 2126988 (Forum Jan. 1, 2025); Home Depot Product Authority, LLC v. Guo Xing, FA 2128258 (Forum Jan. 2, 2025); Home Depot Authority, LLC v. Guo Xing, FA 2125852 (Forum Dec. 14, 2024); Holley Performance Products Inc. and B&M Racing & Performance Products Inc. v. Guo Xing, FA 2126444 (Forum Dec. 17, 2024); Fox Factory, Inc. v. Guo Xing, FA 2071285 (Forum Dec. 28, 2023). Complainant submits that it will be put through unnecessary expense and the proceeding delayed if Chinese were made the language of the proceeding, and from the disputed domain. See Zappos.com, Inc. v. Zufu aka Huahaotrade, WIPO Case D2008-1191 (holding that proceedings could be conducted in English even though the registration agreement was in Chinese where "the disputed domain resolves to a website [that] is exclusively in English, from which can be reasonably presumed that the Respondent has the ability to communicate in English in order to conduct his business over the website in English"). In these circumstances Complainant submits that it would be equitable to conduct the proceeding in English This Panel notes that the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules"), provide "10. General Powers of the Panel (a) The Panel shall conduct the administrative proceeding in such manner as it considers appropriate in accordance with the Policy and these Rules. (b) In all cases, the Panel shall ensure that the Parties are treated with equality and that each Party is given a fair opportunity to present its case. (c) The Panel shall ensure that the administrative proceeding takes place with due expedition. It may, at the request of a Party or on its own motion, extend, in exceptional cases, a period of time fixed by these Rules or by the Panel. (d) The Panel shall determine the admissibility, relevance, materiality and weight of the evidence. 11. Language of Proceedings (a) Unless otherwise agreed by the Parties, or specified otherwise in the Registration Agreement, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the Registration Agreement, subject to the authority of the Panel to determine otherwise, having regard to the circumstances of the administrative proceeding." The record shows that Respondent is proficient in the English language and has a proficiency in the English language. The disputed domain name is composed of three English language elements together with the generic Top-Level Domain ("gTLD") extension <.com>. Respondent maintains a website in the English language, has been notified of this Complaint in both English and Chinese but has not responded in either language. Additionally, as is found below, Respondent has chosen and used the disputed domain name to create a website to intentionally target Complainant, which is established in the United States of America, and the goodwill of Complainant's trademarks, by populating his website to which the disputed domain name with content entirely in English, In the above circumstances, notwithstanding that the language of the Registration Agreement of the disputed domain name is Chinese, this Panel FINDS that neither Party would be prejudiced if this proceeding is conducted in the English language, while Complainant would be further inconvenienced and prejudiced if the proceedings were to progress in the language of the Registration Agreement. Having considered the submissions of Complainant, exercising his discretion pursuant to Rule 11(a), applying the principles set out in the Rules and in particular Rule 10(a)-(c), and having regard to the circumstances of the administrative proceeding this Panel FINDS, DECIDES and DIRECTS that in the interest of procedural fairness this Complaint shall proceed in the English language. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Complainant claims rights in the PURPLE POWER mark established by its ownership of the portfolio of registrations described below and extensive use of the mark within the United States and Mexico since as early as 1950, and by promoting its PURPLE POWER branded products on its own website at <www.purplepowerinc.com>. Complainant asserts that by virtue of these efforts, the PURPLE POWER mark has become well known and recognized by consumers and designating Complainant as a leader in all-purpose cleaners and degreasers, amongst other products, and identifies Complainant as the source of such goods. Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name <thepurplepower.com> is identical or confusingly similar to the PURPLE POWER mark because it incorporates the mark in its entirety merely appending the generic term "the". Complainant next alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name arguing that: · the PURPLE POWER mark is arbitrary, and has no meaning other than as a means to identify Complainant as the source of goods; · upon information and belief, Respondent is not commonly known as "thepurplepower.com," due to the short period of registration; · also as shown in a screen capture exhibited in an annex to the Complaint, the disputed domain resolves to a website that displays Complainant's own copyrighted material and boldly and nefariously displays Complainant's own products and graphics; See Compagnie de Saint Gobain v. Com-Union Corp., WIPO Case D2000-0020 (finding no rights or legitimate interest where Respondent was not commonly known by the mark and never applied for a license or permission from Complainant to use the trademarked name); · the exhibited screen capture shows that Respondent is using the disputed domain name which is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant's PURPLE POWER mark to redirect internet users to Respondent's website for commercial gain; · Panels established under the Policy have consistently held that such use is not 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), see Vapor Blast Mfg. Co. v. R & S Tech., Inc., FA 96577 (Forum Feb. 27, 2001) (finding that the respondent's commercial use of a confusingly similar domain name suggests that the respondent lacks rights or a legitimate interest in the disputed domain name). Complainant next alleges that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith arguing that the PURPLE POWER is a unique and arbitrary mark such that it is unlikely that Respondent devised the term "thepurplepower.com" on its own. Especially given the widespread use of Claimants own artwork and copyright images on the website to which the disputed domain name resolves. This factor alone weighs in favor of finding bad faith against Respondent. See Neuberger Berman, Inc., v. Jacobsen, WIPO Case D2000-0323 (weighing the uniqueness of the trademark, and the likelihood of Respondent coming up with the domain name independently, in finding bad faith). It is further contended that Respondent knowingly registered the disputed domain name containing an exact reproduction of the well-known PURPLE POWER mark, to capitalize on consumer recognition and the associated brand strength of Complainant's products. Furthermore, Complainant complains that most egregiously, Respondent has gone as far as to use direct images from Complainant's website, copyrighted images, including the landing page imagery, and product images. Additionally, it is argued that the exhibited website to which the disputed domain name resolves shows that Respondent has reproduced the content of Complainant's own website to such an extent that Respondent's website is a "clone" of the Complainant's website. Complainant submits that in using the disputed domain name that is identical and confusingly similar to Complainant's PURPLE POWER mark as the address of a cloned website, Respondent intentionally created a likelihood of confusion with the PURPLE POWER mark as to source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its website within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. Such confusion has or will cause customer harm and harm to the Purple Power Marks brand recognition. Furthermore, Complainant refers to a banner on Respondent's exhibited website and contends that Respondent is intentionally attempting to confuse consumers into divulging their personal information, through a "Subscribe and get A discount" banner where visitors are invited to submit their email address. Clearly, Respondent intends to derive financial gain, and has derived financial gain, from such use of the disputed domain name. Complainant adds that the risk of a fraudulent scheme on the part of Respondent is serious, because "clone" websites are often accompanied by fraudulent schemes. See Marriott International, Inc., Marriott Worldwide Corporation and The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, LLC v. Van c. Bethancourt Jr., Andre Williams, WIPO D2018-2428 (WIPO Dec. 6, 2018). Complainant argues that in the case at hand, Complainant is under the threat that Respondent's clone website has continued, and will continue, to serve as support for a potential fraudulent scheme targeting Complainant's customers, in an attempt to extract personal data or money or both for nefarious purposes. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant is a manufacturer of cleaning and degreasing products on which it uses the PURPLE POWER mark and is the owner of a portfolio of trademark registrations for and including the PURPLE POWER mark in the United States and Mexico, including the following: · United States registered trademark PURPLE POWER registration number 2,780,947, registered on the Principal Register on November 11, 2003, for goods in international class 3; · United States registered trademark PURPLE POWER registration number 2,845,082 registered on the Principal Register on May 25, 2004, for goods in international class 5; Complainant has an established Internet presence and maintains a website at <www.purplepowerinc.com>. The disputed domain name was registered on September 26, 2024, and resolves to a website that is a copy of Complainant's website. There is no information available about Respondent except for that provided in the Complaint, the Registrar's WhoIs and the information provided by Registrar in response to the request by Forum for details of the registration of the disputed domain name for the purposes of this proceeding. 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 Complainant has provided uncontested evidence to prove that on the balance of probabilities it has rights in the PURPLE POWER mark, established by its ownership of its portfolio of trademark registrations described above; and by extensive use in trade, including on its website at <www.purplepowerinc.com>. The disputed domain name <thepurplepower.com> consists of Complainant's mark in its entirety, albeit with the addition of the definite article ("the") as the initial element, in combination with the generic Top-Level Domain ("gTLD") extension <.com>. It is well established that once a domain name at issue contains a complainant's mark in its entirety the complainant succeeds in the first element of the test in Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Furthermore, in this case, Complainant's PURPLE POWER mark is the dominant in element and clearly recognizable within the disputed domain name. The addition of the definite article as a prefix to the mark within the disputed domain name adds no distinguishing character. Additionally, in the circumstances of this proceeding the gTLD extension <.com> would be considered by Internet users as a necessary technical requirement for a domain name and therefore does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and Complainant's PURPLE POWER mark. This Panel finds therefore that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the PURPLE POWER mark in which Complainant has rights and Complainant has therefore succeeded in the first element of the test in Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights or Legitimate Interests In its submissions Complainant has made out an uncontested prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. It is well established that once a complainant makes out a prima facie case that a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name at issue, the burden of production shifts to the respondent to prove its rights or legitimate interests. Respondent has failed to discharge that burden and therefore this Panel must find that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Complainant has therefore succeeded in the second element of the test in Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Registration and Use in Bad Faith Complainant has adduced uncontested evidence that it owns and uses the PURPLE POWER mark since at least November 11, 2003, when the mark was registered in the United States. when the mark was first registered, whereas the confusingly similar disputed domain name was not created until September 26, 2024. PURPLE POWER is a distinctive mark, and the disputed domain is composed almost entirely of Complainant's mark, with the mere addition of the definite article. Furthermore, the uncontested evidence is that it has been extensively used by Complainant across the United States and Mexico since 1950. This Panel therefore accepts Complainant's submissions that it is implausible that Respondent might have chosen to register the disputed domain name for any reason other than to create a reference to Complainant and its products. The evidence shows that Respondent's website to which the disputed domain name resolves has extensively used Complainant's trademark, and adopted images taken from Complainant's own website without permission. Taken together, these facts lead this Panel to find that it is undeniable that that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant and Complainant's PURPLE POWER mark prior to registering and using the disputed domain name. This Panel finds therefore that on the balance of probabilities, the disputed domain name was chosen and registered in bad faith to target and take predatory advantage of the Complainant's mark and its goodwill in the PURPLE POWER. The uncontested evidence adduced by the Complainant further shows that the disputed domain name is being used as the address of Respondent's website to mimic and purport to impersonate Complainant as described above. Such intentional unauthorized use of the disputed domain name in an attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent's website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent's web site constitutes use of the disputed domain name in bad faith for the purposes of the Policy. In the circumstances, as shown by the evidence adduced, Complainant's concern that the website to which the disputed domain name resolves may be used for phishing is understandable, however it is unproven. As this Panel has found that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith, Complainant has therefore succeeded in the third element of the test in 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 <thepurplepower.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. James Bridgeman SC, Panelist Dated: February 5, 2025 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.