Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions |
DECISION
Broadcom Corporation v. Howard Chun-Hao
Chuang
Claim Number: FA0309000193876
PARTIES
Complainant is Broadcom Corporation, Irvine, CA (“Complainant”) represented by Gary J. Nelson of Christie, Parker & Hale LLP. Respondent is Howard Chun-Hao Chuang, Rockville, MD (“Respondent”).
REGISTRAR
AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <broadcomm.net> registered with Tucows, Inc.
PANEL
The undersigned certifies that he or she
has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his or her knowledge
has no known
conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Honorable Paul A. Dorf (Ret.) as
Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the
National Arbitration Forum (the "Forum") electronically on September
9, 2003; the
Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on September 10, 2003.
On September 10, 2003, Tucows, Inc.
confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name <broadcomm.net> is registered with Tucows, Inc. and that
Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Tucows, Inc. has verified
that Respondent
is bound by the Tucows, Inc. registration agreement and has
thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties
in
accordance with ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the
"Policy").
On September 12, 2003, a Notification of
Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement
Notification"),
setting a deadline of October 2, 2003 by which Respondent
could file a Response to the Complaint, was transmitted to Respondent via
e-mail, post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's
registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts,
and to postmaster@broadcomm.net
by e-mail.
On September 29, 2003, an individual
named Eugene Y. Wang submitted an e-mail to Complainant and the Forum in
relation to this dispute.
In that e-mail, Mr. Wang explained that he had no
plans to use the <broadcomm.net> domain
name and offered to transfer the domain name registration to Complainant for
$120. However, Mr. Wang forwarded no substantive
Response to Complainant’s
assertions or any defense based on principles recognized in the Policy.
Having received no formal Response from
Respondent, using the same contact details and methods as were used for the
Commencement Notification,
the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification
of Respondent Default.
On October 13, 2003, pursuant to
Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the
Forum appointed Honorable
Paul A. Dorf (Ret.) 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." 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
formal
Response from Respondent.
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant requests that the domain name
be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
PARTIES' CONTENTIONS
A.
Complainant makes the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s
<broadcomm.net> domain name is
confusingly similar to Complainant’s BROADCOM mark.
2. Respondent
does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <broadcomm.net> domain name.
3. Respondent
registered and used the <broadcomm.net>
domain name in bad faith.
B.
Respondent failed to submit a substantive Response in this proceeding.
FINDINGS
Complainant has provided evidence of a
number of trademark registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark
Office (“USPTO”)
for the BROADCOM mark, including Reg. No. 2,132,930
(registered on January 27, 1998) in relation to computer hardware and software
used in connection with satellite transmissions and broadband communications.
Respondent registered the <broadcomm.net> domain name on
August 12, 2003. Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection
with an active website.
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."
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(e), 14(a)
and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate
pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules.
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.
Identical and/or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has established that it has
rights in the BROADCOM mark through registration with the USPTO.
Complainant argues that Respondent’s <broadcomm.net> domain name is
confusingly similar to Complainant’s BROADCOM mark because the disputed domain
name appropriates the entire mark and
simply adds the second letter “m” to the
end of the mark. The addition of a single letter to a domain name that
appropriates a registered
trademark does not alleviate the confusing similarity
between the domain name and the mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Victoria’s Secret v. Zuccarini, FA
95762 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 18, 2000) (finding that, by misspelling words and
adding letters to words, a Respondent does not
create a distinct mark but
nevertheless renders the domain name confusingly similar to Complainant’s
marks); see also Kelson Physician
Partners, Inc. v. Mason, CPR003 (CPR 2000) (finding that
<kelsonmd.com> is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s
federally registered service
mark KELSON).
Accordingly, the Panel finds that
Complainant has demonstrated Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Rights or Legitimate Interests
Respondent has chosen not to
contest Complainant’s allegations in this proceeding. Thus, the Panel accepts
all reasonable allegations
and inferences in the Complaint as true. See Charles Jourdan Holding AG v. AAIM,
D2000-0403 (WIPO June 27, 2000) (finding it appropriate for the Panel to draw
adverse inferences from Respondent’s failure to reply
to the Complaint); see also Desotec N.V. v. Jacobi Carbons AB,
D2000-1398 (WIPO Dec. 21, 2000) (finding that failing to respond allows a
presumption that Complainant’s allegations are true unless
clearly contradicted
by the evidence).
Moreover, the Panel presumes
Respondent lacks any rights to or legitimate interests in the disputed domain
name because Respondent
has not asserted any rights or interests in this
proceeding. See Am. Online, Inc. v. AOL
Int'l, D2000-0654 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate
interests where Respondent fails to respond); see also BIC Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG v. Tweed, D2000-0418
(WIPO June 20, 2000) (“By not submitting a response, Respondent has failed to
invoke any circumstance which could demonstrate,
pursuant to ¶ 4(c) of the
Policy, any rights or legitimate interests in the domain name”).
Respondent’s willingness to
transfer the domain name to Complainant suggests that Respondent lacks any
rights to or legitimate interests
in the disputed domain name pursuant to
Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See Marcor Int’l v.
Langevin, FA 96317 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 12, 2001) (Respondent’s
willingness to transfer the domain name at issue indicates that it has no
rights or legitimate interests in the domain name in question); see also Land O’ Lakes Inc. v. Offbeat Media
Inc., FA 96451 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 23, 2001) (finding that Respondent’s
willingness to transfer upon notification of the Complaint
is evidence of its
lack of legitimate interests or rights).
Respondent has offered no
evidence and there is no indication in the record that Respondent is commonly
known by BROADCOMM or <broadcomm.net>.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights to or legitimate
interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶
4(c)(ii). See Gallup Inc. v. Amish Country Store,
FA 96209 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 23, 2001) (finding that Respondent does not have
rights in a domain name when Respondent is not known
by the mark); see also RMO, Inc. v. Burbridge, FA
96949 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 16, 2001) (interpreting Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) "to require a
showing that one has been commonly known by the domain name prior to
registration
of the domain name to prevail").
The Panel finds that
Complainant has established Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Registration and Use in Bad
Faith
Based on the fame of
Complainant’s BROADCOM mark, the Panel infers that Respondent had actual or
constructive notice of Complainant’s
rights in its mark when Respondent
registered the <broadcomm.net> domain
name. The registration of a domain name despite actual or constructive
knowledge of Complainant’s rights evidences bad faith
pursuant to Policy ¶
4(a)(iii). See Samsonite Corp. v. Colony
Holding, FA 94313 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 17, 2000) (finding that evidence of
bad faith includes actual or constructive knowledge of a commonly
known mark at
the time of registration); see also
Entrepreneur Media, Inc. v. Smith, [2002] USCA9 115; 279 F.3d 1135, 1148 (9th Cir. Feb. 11, 2002)
(finding that "[w]here an alleged infringer chooses a mark he knows to be
similar to another, one can
infer an intent to confuse").
Furthermore, Respondent’s
expressed willingness to transfer the <broadcomm.net>
domain name to Complainant satisfies the bad faith requirement of the
Policy. See Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095
(Nat. Arb. Forum July 31, 2000) (finding Respondent’s willingness to transfer
and its failure to develop the site are evidence
of its bad faith registration
and use); see also Desotec N.V. v. Jacobi
Carbons AB, D2000-1398 (WIPO Dec. 21, 2000) (finding that Respondent’s
failure to submit a formal Response combined with its agreement at the
onset of
the Complaint to transfer the disputed names satisfies all the requirements of
¶ 4(a)(iii)).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶
4(a)(iii) has been 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 <broadcomm.net> domain
name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent
to Complainant.
Honorable Paul A. Dorf (Ret.)
Panelist
Dated: October 24, 2003
WorldLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/GENDND/2003/999.html