WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Radwell International, Inc. v. Hasan, Azra

Case No. D2015-0779

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Radwell International, Inc. of Lumberton, New Jersey, United States of America, represented internally.

The Respondent is Hasan, Azra of Sterling, Virginia, United States of America.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <radwellplc.net> (the “Domain Name”) is registered with Network Solutions, LLC (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 30, 2015. On May 1, 2015, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On the same day, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details.

The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).

In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on May 6, 2015. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was May 26, 2015. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May 27, 2015.

The Center appointed Michelle Brownlee as the sole panelist in this matter on June 3, 2015. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7.

4. Factual Background

The Complainant owns the following trademark registrations:

The Domain Name was registered on or about February 6, 2015.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant has been using the mark PLCCENTER since 2002, and has been using the mark RADWELL INTERNATIONAL since 2004. The Complainant has operated the website under the domain name <plccenter.com> since 2002. The Complainant has also owned the domain name <radwell.com> since 2014. The Complainant contends that it has become one of the most recognizable names in industrial automation sales and repair in the world.

The Complainant alleges that the Respondent has used the Domain Name in a fraudulent scheme in which the Respondent has pretended to be an employee of the Complainant in order to apply for credit and issue false purchase orders to third-party vendors. The Complainant further alleges that the Respondent originally set up the Domain Name to resolve to the Complainant’s home page until the Complainant discovered this and blocked the Domain Name from forwarding. The Complainant states that the Domain Name does not currently resolve to any page.

The Complainant argues that the Domain Name is confusing similar to its RADWELL INTERNATIONAL and PLCCENTER trademarks, that the Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name, and that the Respondent has registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy provides that in order to be entitled to a transfer of a domain name, a complainant must prove the following three elements:

(i) the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and

(ii) the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and

(iii) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Complainant has demonstrated that it owns rights in the PLCCENTER and RADWELL INTERNATIONAL trademarks and has provided evidence that these marks are often used together. The Panel finds that the use of the terms “radwell” and “plc” together in the Domain Name is confusingly similar to trademarks in which the Complainant has rights in that it is a combination of abbreviated versions of the Complainant’s RADWELL INTERNATIONAL and PLCCENTER trademarks. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established the first element under the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides that a respondent can demonstrate rights to or legitimate interests in a domain name by demonstrating one of the following facts:

(i) before receiving any notice of the dispute, the respondent used or made preparations to use the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or

(ii) the respondent has been commonly known by the domain name; or

(iii) the respondent is 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 at issue.

In this case, the Respondent has not presented evidence that the Respondent used or made demonstrable preparations to use the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; that the Respondent is commonly known by the Domain Name; that the Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name; or in any other way refuted the Complainant’s prima facie case.

The Complainant has presented evidence, which was not refuted by the Respondent, that the Respondent is using the Domain Name to pass itself off as an employee of the Complainant for the purposes of misleading third parties into extending credit and placing fraudulent purchase orders for merchandise. This activity cannot under the circumstances be considered a bona fide offering of goods or services. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent does not have any rights to or legitimate interests in the Domain Name.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy states that the following circumstances are evidence of registration and use of a domain name in bad faith:

(i) circumstances indicating that the respondent has registered or acquired the domain name at issue 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 documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or

(ii) the respondent 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 the 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, the respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its website or location or of a product or service on its website or location.

The Panel finds that the Complainant has established bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. The Complainant provided evidence that the Respondent sent emails to people in which the Respondent misrepresented himself as an employee of the Complainant, and which were in furtherance of a scheme to fraudulently obtain merchandise on credit from third parties who believed they were extending credit to the Complainant. The Respondent is using the Domain Name to create confusion as to the source of the emails that he sent, and this activity was aimed at defrauding others. There is no question that the Respondent’s activities amount to bad faith registration and use under the Policy.

7. Decision

For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the Domain Name <radwellplc.net> be transferred to the Complainant.

Michelle Brownlee
Sole Panelist
Date: June 17, 2015