Charterspectrumlogin.net

The timeline behind charterspectrumlogin.net

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 Charter Communications Holding Company, LLC v. Wu Yu Claim Number: FA2501002137659 PARTIES Complainant is Charter Communications Holding Company, LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Julie Kent of Holland & Hart LLP, Colorado, USA. Respondent is Wu Yu ("Respondent"), China. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <charterspectrumlogin.net>, registered with Dynadot 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. Richard Hill as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on January 29, 2025; Forum received payment on January 29, 2025. On January 29, 2025, Dynadot Inc confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <charterspectrumlogin.net> domain name is registered with Dynadot Inc and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Dynadot Inc has verified that Respondent is bound by the Dynadot 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 February 3, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 24, 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@charterspectrumlogin.net. Also on February 3, 2025, 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 February 25, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Richard Hill 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 Complainant states that it is a telecommunications company providing services to over 32 million customers in the United States. With over 101,000 employees and service in 41 states, Complainant considers itself America's fastest growing TV, internet, and voice company. Complainant asserts rights in the marks CHARTER, SPECTRUM, and CHARTER SPECTRUM based upon their registration in the United States in, respectively 1997, 2016, and 2014. Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is are confusingly similar to its CHARTER SPECTRUM trademark because it incorporates the mark in its entirety, and merely adds the generic/descriptive term "login", together with the generic top-level domain name ("gTLD") ".net". Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position. According to Complainant, Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant's marks and is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, the resolving website displays pay-per-click advertising hyperlinks for services that compete with those of Complainant. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position. Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent disrupts Complainant's business by advertising competing services. The disputed domain name has MX records configured, so it may be used in furtherance of phishing. Respondent has engaged in a pattern of bad faith registration and use of domain name. Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in its marks. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant has registered trademark rights for the marks CHARTER, SPECTRUM, and CHARTER SPECTRUM dating back to, respectively 1997, 2016, and 2014, and uses them to provide telecommunication services. Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its marks. The disputed domain name was registered in 2024. The resolving website displays advertising links to services that compete with those of Complainant. Respondent engaged in a pattern of bad faith registration and use of domain names. 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 disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's CHARTER SPECTRUM mark in its entirety, and merely adds the generic/descriptive term "login", together with the generic top-level domain name ("gTLD") ".net". Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), such changes are generally insufficient in differentiating a disputed domain name from the mark it incorporates. See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("Where a relevant trademark is recognisable within a disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element."); see also Vanguard Group Inc. v. Proven Fin. Solutions, FA 572937 (Forum Nov. 18, 2005) (holding that the addition of both the word "advisors" and the gTLD ".com" did not sufficiently alter the disputed domain name to negate a finding of confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)). Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its marks. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name: under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), WHOIS information may be used to determine whether a respondent is 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). Here, the WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the registrant as "Wu Yu". Therefore the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). The resolving website displays advertising hyperlinks for services that compete with those of Complainant. Use of a domain name to redirect users to unrelated third-party sites (whether or not they compete with Complainant) is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See Trulia, Inc. v. Armen A, FA 1586491 (Forum Dec. 2, 2014) (finding that a parked page containing pay-per-click advertising links that resolve to the websites of Complainant's competitors did "not constitute a Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) bona fide offering of goods or services, or a Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) legitimate noncommercial fair use"); see also Constellation Wines U.S., Inc. v. Tex. Int'l Prop. Assocs., FA 948436 (Forum May 8, 2007) (finding that the respondent had no rights or legitimate interests under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or 4(c)(iii) by using the disputed domain name to operate a website featuring links to goods and services unrelated to the complainant); see also Coachella Music Festival, LLC v. josh greenly / All Access Tickets, FA 1629217 (Forum Aug. 10, 2015) (finding that the respondent had failed to provide a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name as required under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii), where the respondent was using the disputed domain name to host a web page that featured links to services that competed with those of the complainant). Thus the Panel finds that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and 4(c)(iii)). And the Panel finds that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Complainant alleges that, because MX records are configured for the disputed domain name, it could be used in furtherance of email phishing. However, Complainant does not provide any evidence of actual use of the disputed domain name in emails. Thus the Panel finds that Complainant has failed to satisfy its burden of proof for this allegation, and will not further discuss it. Respondent (who did not reply to Complainant's contentions) has not presented any plausible explanation for its use of Complainant's marks. In accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel shall draw such inferences from Respondent's failure to reply as it considers appropriate. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent did not have a legitimate use in mind when registering the disputed domain name. Indeed, as already noted, the resolving website displays advertising links to services that compete with those of Complainant. Use of a disputed domain name to redirect consumers to competing goods or services can be evidence of bad faith disruption of a complainant's business under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and an attempt to attract users for commercial gain under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Guidehouse LLP v. Zhi Chao Yang, FA 2013476 (Forum Oct. 31, 2022) ("[T]he resolving website displays advertising links to competing services. This constitutes bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)."); see also block.one v. Negalize Interactive Things, FA 1798280 (Forum Aug. 21, 2018) ("Offering links to competing products or services can demonstrate bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) where a respondent registers a domain name that is confusingly similar to the mark of another."); see also Capital One Financial Corp. v. DN Manager / Whois-Privacy.Net Ltd, FA 1615034 (Forum June 4, 2015) (holding that the respondent's use of the <capitaloneonebank.com> domain name to display links to the complainant's competitors, such as Bank of America, Visa, Chase and American Express constituted bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)); see also Capital One Financial Corp. v. Above.com Domain Privacy / Above.com Domain Privacy, FA 1598657 (Forum Feb. 20, 2015) ("This Panel agrees that Respondent's use as shown in Exhibits C-D illustrates that Respondent here seeks commercial gain through a likelihood of confusion, as competing hyperlinks have been found to establish evidence of intent to seek commercial gain through referral fees, and thus demonstrates bad faith registration under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)."). Therefore the Panel finds that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and/or (iv). Further, Complainant cites numerous UDRP cases in which Respondent has been found to have registered and used domain names in bad faith. This is sufficient to establish a pattern of bad faith registration and use under the Policy. See Webster Financial Corporation and Webster Bank, National Association v. Above.com Domain Privacy, FA 1464477 (Forum Nov. 30, 2012) (finding where the record reflected that the respondent had been a respondent in other UDRP proceedings in which it was ordered to transfer disputed domain names to various complainants established a pattern of bad faith registration and use of domain names and stood as evidence of bad faith in the registration and use of domain names under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii)); see also DIRECTV, LLC v. michal restl c/o Dynadot, FA 1788826 (Forum July 5, 2018) ("The record contains evidence of Respondent's previous eleven UDRP actions, all of which resulted in the transfer of the domain names, thus establishing bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii)."); see also Philip Morris USA Inc. v. RapidClic / VAUCLIN Olivier, FA 1520008 (Forum Nov. 7, 2013) (respondent's registration of multiple infringing domain names established a pattern of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii)). Thus the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). 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 <charterspectrumlogin.net> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Richard Hill, Panelist Dated: February 25, 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.