{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-104771", "time_of_filling": "2022-08-11 08:30:49", "domain_names": [ "celestron-sales.store", "celestron-usa.store" ], "case_administrator": " Iveta Špiclová (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "Celestron Acquisition, LLC" ], "complainant_representative": "Marie Richmond Esq. (Loza and Loza LLP)", "respondent": [ "shanwang chen" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant in this administrative proceeding is Celestron Acquisition, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company. \r\n\r\nThe Respondents for the Disputed Domain Names are the following:\r\n\r\nDisputed Domain #1: \r\nRespondent Name:\t\tshanwang chen\r\nAddress: \t\t\t\tfuzhou city fu shan Road fushan ming ju 2-201\r\n\t\t\t\t\tFuzhou, fujian 350001\r\n\t\t\t\t\tChina\r\nTelephone: \t\t\t86 . 15259123078\r\nEmail: \t\t\t\tappoinmcb8b22fx@gmail.com\r\n\r\nDisputed Domain #2: \r\nRespondent Name:\t\tleo chen\r\nAddress: \t\t\t\t#3-303 Feng Huan Bei District Gu Lou District\r\n\t\t\t\t\tFu Zhou, Fu Jian 350001\r\n\t\t\t\t\tChina\r\nTelephone: \t\t\t86 . 13950397302\r\nEmail: \t\t\t\t472.3sxpmvqjio@gmail.com\r\n\r\n\r\nThis dispute concerns the domain names created on November 17, 2021 and created on January 6, 2022.\r\n\r\nThe registrar with which the Disputed Domain Names are registered is Dynadot, LLC.\r\n\r\nThis Complaint is based on the following grounds:\r\n\r\nThe Complaint concerns two different domain names. Complainant believes that the Disputed Domain Names are owned and controlled by the same entity and\/or person, based on several indicia of common control.\r\n\r\nWhile the Registrar Verification provided by Dynadot states that is registered by “leo chen” and is registered by “shanwang chen” there are in the view of Complainant numerous indicia to indicate this is the same person, or at the very least, that the Disputed Domain Names are subject to common control and ownership, such that the Respondent may be treated as a single domain name holder.\r\n\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that there is a lot of evidence to demonstrate common control of the Disputed Domain Names. First, the websites associated with the Disputed Domain Names are carbon copies of one another: this includes and is not limited to:\r\n\r\n(1) homepages that are identically laid out and picturing the exact same products and photos; \r\n\r\n(2) identical product pages; \r\n\r\n(3) identical product pricing, including the same “LIMITED TIME OFFER” and offer of “Free Shipping over $40; \r\n\r\n(4) identical sign in pages; and \r\n\r\n(5) identical “About Us” pages, which contain Celestron’s copyrighted video and text. \r\n\r\n\r\nSecond, the Disputed Domain Names are registered with the same Registrar, Dynadot, and utilize the same privacy service to mask their identity.\r\n\r\nThird, the registrant’s share an identical surname, city, region, and country of origin. \r\n\r\nFourth, the addresses provided in the WHOIS contact information both appear to be invalid. \r\n\r\nFifth and finally, upon information and belief, the Websites both previously displayed the identical e-mail jennadrewmo@gmail.com as the contact e-mail.\r\n\r\nComplainant is therefore of the opinion that consolidation of the proceedings is fair and equitable to all parties. \r\n\r\nComplainant is an internationally known optics company that was founded in 1960. Complainant produces high quality telescopes, binoculars, lenses, cameras, GPS systems, and much more. Complainant has continuously used the CELESTRON and CELESTRON-formative family of marks in connection with such goods since at least as early as May 1965. \r\n\r\nComplainant has registered several CELESTRON and CELESTRON-formative marks with the United States Patent and Trademark Office.\r\n\r\nComplainant states that through intensive use by Complainant, the Celestron Marks are famous both in the United States and throughout the world. Complainant has invested copious amounts of time and money in growing CELESTRON and CELESTRON-formative brands. \r\n\r\nComplainant states furthermore that Respondent does not have, and has never had, permission to use the CELESTRON Marks. \r\n\r\nComplainant’s numerous trademark registrations for the Celestron Marks establish Celestron’s prior rights pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. \r\n\r\nComplainant’s trademark rights in the CELESTRON Mark date back to 1965, when the mark was first used in United States commerce and at least as early as 1980, when the mark was registered in the United States; whereas, the and Disputed Domain Names were not created until November 2021 and January 2022, respectively, some fifty-five years after Complainant used its CELESTRON Mark in commerce in the United States. \r\n\r\nComplainant states that a simple comparison of the Disputed Domain Names to the CELESTRON Marks demonstrates that the Disputed Domain Names are essentially identical to Complainant's CELESTRON Marks. The Disputed Domain Name is comprised of Complainant’s CELESTRON trademark (in its entirety) merely adding a ‘hyphen’ (discussed infra), and the geographic indicator ‘usa’. The Disputed Domain Name is comprised of Complainant’s CELESTRON trademark (in its entirety) merely adding a ‘hyphen’ (discussed infra), and the generic term ‘sales’.\r\n\r\nThe addition of a ‘hyphen’ does in the view of Complainant nothing to distinguish the Disputed Domain Names from Complainant’s mark. Finally, it is well-settled that the addition of a generic TLD, i.e. ‘.store’, as is the case here, does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. Thus in the view of Complainant, the and domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s CELESTRON Mark. \r\n\r\nComplainant states, that it is clear that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the Disputed Domain Names. Respondent not only registered the Disputed Domain Names many decades after Complainant’s rights in the Celestron’s Marks arose but is using the Disputed Domain Names to direct Internet users to his websites, which purport to sell Complainant’s goods for unreasonably discounted prices, and also to trade off Complainant’s goodwill. Complainant’s rights predate any registration or use of the Disputed Domain Names by Respondent by some 55 years. \r\n\r\nUse of the Disputed Domain Names to commercially benefit from Complainant’s goodwill does not in the view of Complainant demonstrate any bona fide offering of goods or services. There is furthermore no evidence that Respondent is commonly known by the Disputed Domain Names. The use of a disputed domain to confuse or divert Internet traffic is in the view of Complainant also not a legitimate use of a domain name. \r\n\r\nRespondent is in the view of Complainant clearly attempting to create a likelihood of confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation and\/or endorsement of the websites connected to the Disputed Domain Names. Complainant states, that while the infringing use of the CELESTRON Mark within the Disputed Domain Names is enough to lead Internet users to believe that the website is sponsored by, or somehow affiliated with Complainant, Respondent goes even further: Respondent makes unauthorized use of the CELESTRON Mark in the header of the websites, uses the CELESTRON mark rampantly throughout the infringing websites, makes unauthorized of Celestron’s copyrighted images, and even includes a video and promotional blurb about Celestron on the “About Us” page of the websites, all of which serves to dupe Internet users into believing that the websites are owned and operated by Complainant and that the infringing website offers legitimate products, which based on the circumstances does not seem likely.\r\n \r\nMoreover, the overall look and feel of the concerned websites is almost identical to the Celestron website. The homepage for each of the websites is comprised of a white background with the CELESTRON logo mark displayed prominently at the top of the page; they display a large banner with a photo promoting Celestron goods; and contain a horizontal menu across the top of the page where users can learn about and purchase Celestron products. Each of these elements are essentially identical to the Celestron website. This is all in addition to the wildly misleading “About Us” page contained on the websites, that is in the view of Complainant almost an exact copy of Celestron’s own “About Us” page. Respondent also uses exact copies of Celestron’s copyrighted photos without Celestron’s permission.\r\n\r\nAdditionally, Complainant is informed and believes that Registrant is not selling legitimate goods. On the one hand, the prices are so deeply discounted that it would be unreasonable to believe that such goods are legitimate (in some cases offering over a 90% discount). On the other hand, Respondent has a demonstrated a history of engaging in Internet scams, preying on unsuspecting consumers, which can be seen from the screenshots from various internet sources linking the email address associated with at least one of the Disputed Domain Names with various online scams. In one instance a consumer stated that Respondent had taken their money and not provided any goods. Respondent is therefore clearly scamming consumers in the view of Complainant. \r\n\r\nThe foregoing demonstrates in the view of Complainant that Respondent attempting to profit from Complainant’s goodwill by confusing consumers into believing that the websites are associated with Complainant, and then scamming consumers by taking their money and potentially other sensitive financial and personal information, and not providing any goods, which amounts to a bad faith use and registration of the Disputed Domain Names. \r\n \r\nThe use of a confusingly similar domain to operate a website that offers goods similar to those of Complainant indicates that Respondent wilfully registered the Disputed Domain Names primarily to disrupt Complainant’s business.\r\n\r\nRespondent registered and uses the Disputed Domain Names to direct Internet users to his websites, which purport to sell Complainant’s goods. Such use results in a disruption to Complainant’s business and demonstrates Respondents bad faith use and registration of the Disputed Domain Names. The fact that Respondent has undertaken such actions decades after Complainant’s trademark rights arose is in the view of Complainant further evidence of a bad faith registration for the sole purpose of disrupting Complainant’s business for Respondents own commercial gain. \r\n\r\nComplainant is also informed and believes that Respondent is using the Disputed Domain Names to disrupt Complainant’s business by using the associated infringing websites to “phish” for highly sensitive personal information under the guise of providing selling Celestron’s goods. \r\n\r\nMany panels have ruled that “phishing” activity disrupts business within the provisions of paragraph 4(b)(iii) of the Policy.\r\n\r\nRespondent has created a “login” page on both Infringing Websites requesting consumers provide sensitive information, including location, name, and telephone number. If a consumer purchases a product, they will likely also provide sensitive financial information. \r\n\r\nClearly Respondent is not operating a legitimate business, else it would not need to rely on duping consumers into believing that it was associated with Complainant through rampant use of the Celestron Marks, mimicking the Celestron website, and using Complainant’s copyrighted materials. Nor would Respondent’s email be listed on a numerous websites that identify consumer scams. Any resulting consumer blowback that results from Respondent’s actions will no doubt cause a disruption to Complainant’s business and damage Complainant’s goodwill in the Celestron Marks. \r\n\r\nComplainant states, that there is no question Respondent was aware of Complainant and the Celestron Marks. The Disputed Domain Names were created more than five decades after Complainant’s rights in the Celestron Marks arose. Moreover, Respondent has made liberal infringing use of the Celestron Marks to scam unsuspecting customers amounting in bad faith use and registration of the Disputed Domain Names. \r\n\r\nThus, it is clear that Respondent in the view of Complainant knowingly registered and has used the Disputed Domain Names to not only confuse customers as to the source of the websites, but also to disrupt Complainant’s business, evidencing Respondent’s bad faith use and registration of the Disputed Domain Names. ", "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings which are pending or decided and which relate to the Disputed Domain Names.", "no_response_filed": "NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.\r\n\r\n", "rights": "The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the Disputed Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy).", "no_rights_or_legitimate_interests": "The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the Respondent to have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Names (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy).", "bad_faith": "The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the Disputed Domain Names have been registered and are being used in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy).", "procedural_factors": "The Panel is satisfied that all procedural requirements under UDRP were met and there is no other reason why it would be inappropriate to provide a decision.", "decision": "Accepted", "panelists": [ "Jan Christian Schnedler, LL.M." ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2022-09-10 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "Complainant has registered several CELESTRON and CELESTRON-formative marks with the United States Patent and Trademark Office, for example: \r\n\r\n\r\nCELESTRON\t\r\nReg. No. 1,139,857\t\r\nDate of First Use: May 7, 1965\t\r\nReg. Date: Sept. 23, 1980\r\n \r\nCELESTRON \r\nReg. No.: 3,005,393\t\t\r\nDate of First Use: Aug. 15, 2002\r\nReg. Date: Aug. 11, 2005\r\n \r\nCELESTRON \r\nReg. No.: 4,369,087\t\r\nDate of First Use: May 20, 2011\t\r\nReg. Date: Jul. 16, 2013\r\n\r\nCELESTRON\t\r\nReg. No.: 4,191,748\t\r\nDate of First Use: May 20, 2011\t\r\nReg. Date: Aug. 14, 2010\r\n\r\n", "decision_domains": { "CELESTRON-SALES.STORE": "TRANSFERRED", "CELESTRON-USA.STORE": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }