Systemax.xyz

The timeline behind systemax.xyz

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 CommScope, Inc. of North Carolina v. yu qing qing Claim Number: FA2502002140764 PARTIES Complainant is CommScope, Inc. of North Carolina ("Complainant"), represented by William Schultz of Merchant & Gould, Minnesota, USA. Respondent is yu qing qing ("Respondent"), China. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <systemax.xyz>, registered with Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina (www.net.cn). 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. Debrett G. Lyons as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 18, 2025; Forum received payment on February 18, 2025. On February 19, 2025, Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina (www.net.cn) confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <systemax.xyz> domain name is registered with Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina (www.net.cn) and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina (www.net.cn) has verified that Respondent is bound by the Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina (www.net.cn) 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 20, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Chinese and English Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 12, 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@systemax.xyz. Also on February 20, 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 March 13, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Debrett G. Lyons 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. PRELIMINARY ISSUE: LANGUAGE OF PROCEEDING Rule 11(a) states that: 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 language of the Registration Agreement is Chinese but the Complaint was submitted in English. Complainant nonetheless submitted that: [i]n this case, the Domain Name, systemax.xyz has no meaning in any language other than English. Thus, the Respondent has to have at least sufficient familiarity with the English language to select those particular characters for registration. Moreover, Respondent has listed the Domain Name for sale on a website that uses the English language. The Panel notes this is so. The Panel also notes that when a request is made under Rule 11(a), it is customary to take Rules 10(b) and (c) into consideration to ensure fairness and justice to both parties. Accordingly, the Panel determines, pursuant to Rule 11(a), that the proceedings should be conducted in English (see for example, Zappos.com, Inc. v. Zufu aka Huahaotrade, Case No. D2008-1191 (WIPO October 15, 2008) 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"). PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Complainant asserts trademark rights in SYSTIMAX and submits that the domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark. Complainant alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Further, that the domain name is for sale. Complainant alleges that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith having targeted Complainant's trademark and business. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS The factual findings pertinent to the decision in this case are that: 1. Complainant provides communications products and services under the trademark, SYSTIMAX; 2. Complainant owns, inter alia, United States Patent & Trademark Office ("USPTO") Reg. No. 6,806,088, registered August 2, 2022, for the mark, SYSTIMAX; and 3. the disputed domain name was registered on February 13, 2025, and is for sale for USD1450.00. 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. Identical and/or Confusingly Similar Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires a two-fold enquiry—a threshold investigation into whether a complainant has rights in a trademark, followed by an assessment of whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that trademark. It is well established by decisions under this Policy that a trademark registered with a national authority is evidence of trademark rights (see, for example, Mothers Against Drunk Driving v. phix, FA 174052 (Forum Sept. 25, 2003)). Complainant therefore has rights since it provides proof of its registration of the trademark SYSTIMAX with the USPTO, a national trademark authority. Complainant submits that the domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark. For the purposes of comparison of the disputed domain name with the trademark, the gTLD, ".xyz", can be disregarded (see, for example, Gardline Surveys Ltd. v. Domain Fin. Ltd., FA 153545 (Forum May 27, 2003) holding that: "The addition of a top-level domain is irrelevant when establishing whether or not a mark is identical or confusingly similar, because top-level domains are a required element of every domain name."); Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association v. Shi Lei aka Shilei, FA 1784643 (Forum June 18, 2018) holding that: "A TLD (whether a gTLD, sTLD or ccTLD) is disregarded under a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis because domain name syntax requires TLDs.")). Thereafter, the domain name is a trivial and transparent misspelling of the trademark. The Panel finds the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to the trademark (see, for example, Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1804001782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) holding: "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."; The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy states that any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be proved based on its evaluation of all evidence presented, shall demonstrate rights or legitimate interests to a domain name for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy: (i) before any notice to you of the dispute, your use 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) you (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the domain name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or (iii) you are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue. Complainant need only make out a prima facie case that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, after which the onus shifts to Respondent to rebut that case by demonstrating those rights or interests (see, for example, Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, WIPO Case No. D2000‑0624). There is no suggestion that Respondent might be commonly known by the disputed domain name, or that Respondent has any trademark rights. The Complaint states that the disputed name resolves to an advertising webpage. In evidence is a page seemingly maintained by the domain name registrar, GoDaddy, where disputed domain name is listed for sale for USD1450.00. There is no other evidence of use of the name. Such use does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the domain name (see, for example, Kohler Co. v xi long chen, FA 1737910 (Forum Aug. 4, 2017) ("Respondent has not made a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the domain. Respondent's <kohler-corporation.com> resolves to an inactive webpage displaying the message "website coming soon!"); Thermo Electron Corp. v. Xu, FA 713851 (Forum July 12, 2006) finding that the respondent's non-use of the disputed domain names demonstrates that the respondent is not using the disputed domain names for a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)). The Panel finds that Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks a right or interest in the disputed domain name. The onus shifts to Respondent. Absent a Response that onus is not met and so the Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Complainant must prove on the balance of probabilities both that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith and used in bad faith. Further guidance on that requirement is found in paragraph 4(b) of the Policy, which sets out four circumstances, any one of which is taken to be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith if established. The four specified circumstances are: '(i) circumstances indicating that the respondent has registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the respondent's documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or (ii) the respondent has registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or (iii) the respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or (iv) by using the domain name, respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, internet users to respondent's website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the respondent's website or location or of a product or service on the site or location.' The Complainant relies upon paragraph 4(b)(i) above and the Panel considers it to have direct application to the facts of the case. In terms of the Policy, the Panel finds circumstances indicating that Respondent registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to Complainant or a competitor of Complainant, for USD1450.00, being most likely well in excess of Respondent's costs related to acquisition of the domain name (see, for example, involving the same Respondent and same sale amount, the case of Axalta Coating Systems IP Co. LLC v. yu qing qing, FA2405002096594, (Forum, May 30, 2024) finding bad faith in the registration of multiple domain names each offered for sale at USD1450.00); Bank of Am. Corp. v. Nw. Free Cmty. Access, FA 180704 (Forum Sept. 30, 2003) ("Respondent's general offer of the disputed domain name registration for sale establishes that the domain name was registered in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(i).")). The Panel therefore finds that the third and final element of the Policy is satisfied. 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 <systemax.xyz> domain name be TRANSFERRED to Complainant. Debrett G. Lyons, Panelist Dated: March 16, 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.