Asurion, LLC v quan zhongjun aka zhongjun quan

WIPO Case No. D2022-4267

ARBITRATION

AND

MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Asurion, LLC v. quan zhongjun aka zhongjun quan

Case No. D2022-4267

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Asurion, LLC, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Adams and

Reese LLP, United States.

The Respondent is quan zhongjun aka zhongjun quan, China.

2. The Domain Names and Registrar

The disputed domain names <asurionverizon.com> and <callasurion.com> are registered with Hefei Juming

Network Technology Co., Ltd (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed in English with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 9, 2022. On November 10, 2022, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On November 16, 2022, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain names which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on November 16, 2022, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint in English on November 17, 2022.

On November 16, 2022, the Center transmitted an email communication to the Parties in English and Chinese regarding the language of the proceeding. On November 17, 2022, the Complainant confirmed its request that English be the language of the proceeding. The Respondent did not comment on the language of the proceeding.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended 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”).

page 2

In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent in English
and Chinese of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on November 24, 2022. In accordance with
the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 14, 2022. The Respondent did not

submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on December 15, 2022.

The Center appointed Sok Ling MOI as the sole panelist in this matter on December 23, 2022. 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, a company incorporated in the United States, offers insurance, technology, mobile phone
replacement, configuration, technical support, IT consultation, and related products and services under the
ASURION mark. The Complainant has used the ASURION mark since at least as early as 2001. The
Complainant has served over 280 million consumers worldwide, and its services are made available by
retailers worldwide. The Complainant has fourteen locations in North and South America, two locations in
Europe, two locations in Australia, and ten locations in Asia, including China, Japan, Israel, Malaysia, the

Philippines, Singapore, Taiwan Province of China, and Thailand.

The Complainant advertises and sells its products and services through its “ website and
related websites, as well as through print media and other advertising and promotional campaigns. The
Complainant’s website at <asurion.com> receives over 7.9 million visits annually. The Complainant
maintains an active social media presence, with more than one million Facebook “likes” and nearly 27,000
Twitter followers.

The Complainant owns valid trade mark registrations for the ASURION mark in many jurisdictions worldwide, including the United States, the United Kingdom, the European Union, Australia, Singapore, and China, including the following:

- United States Trade Mark Registration No. 2698459, registered on March 18, 2003;

- United States Trade Mark Registration No. 4179272, registered on July 24, 2012;

- United States Trade Mark Registration No. 4314110, registered on April 2, 2013;

- United States Trade Mark Registration No. 4997781, registered on July 12, 2016;

- United States Trade Mark Registration No. 6010609, registered on March 17, 2020;

- China Trade Mark Registration No. 8809457, registered on December 21, 2011;

- China Trade Mark Registration No. 8809458, registered on December 7, 2011; and

- China Trade Mark Registration No. 8809459, registered on November 21, 2011.

The Complainant and its licensees also owns numerous domain names incorporating the ASURION mark, including the following:

- <asurion.com>

- <asurion.co>

- <asurion.biz>

- <asurion.net>

- <asurion.org>

- <asurion.support>

- <asurion-mobile.com>

- <asurionservices.com>

The disputed domain names were registered on October 29, 2022. According to the evidence submitted by the Complaint, the disputed domain names resolved to a parking webpage featuring sponsored links to third party websites.

page 3

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to its ASURION trade mark, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names, and that the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith.

The Complainant requests for the transfer of the disputed domain names.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

6.1 Procedural Issue: Language of the Proceeding

Pursuant to paragraph 11(a) of the Rules, 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.

Paragraphs 10(b) and (c) of the Rules require the Panel to ensure that the proceeding takes place with due expedition and that the Parties are treated equitably and given a fair opportunity to present their respective cases.

The language of the Registration Agreement for the disputed domain names is Chinese. From the evidence on record, no agreement appears to have been entered into between the Complainant and the Respondent regarding the language issue. The Complainant filed its Complaint in English and has requested that

English be the language of the proceeding. The Respondent did not respond on the issue of the language of the proceeding.

The Panel finds persuasive evidence in the present proceeding to suggest that the Respondent has knowledge of English. In particular, the Panel notes that:

(a)	the disputed domain names are registered in Latin characters, rather than Chinese script;
(b)	the disputed domain name <callasurion.com> incorporates the English word “call”;
(c)	the websites to which the disputed domain names resolved contain pay-per-click (“PPC”) links and contents in English; and
(d)	according to the reverse WhoIs results submitted by the Complainant, the Respondent has registered several other domain names which comprise Latin characters and English words, such as <littleceacars.com>, <deltafaceet.com>, and <sqaarespace.com>.

Additionally, the Panel notes that:

(a)	the Center has notified the Respondent of the language of the proceeding, and commencement of the proceeding in both Chinese and English;
(b)	the Center has informed the Respondent that it would accept a Response in either English or Chinese; and

page 4

(c) the Respondent did not comment on the language of the proceeding nor file a Response.

Considering the above circumstances, the Panel finds that the choice of English as the language of the present proceeding is fair to all Parties and is not prejudicial to any of the Parties in their ability to articulate the arguments for this case. The Panel has taken into consideration the fact that to require the Complaint and all supporting documents to be translated into Chinese would, in the circumstances of this case, cause an unnecessary cost burden to the Complainant and would unnecessarily delay the proceeding.

In view of all the above, the Panel determines under paragraph 11(a) of the Rules that it shall accept the proceeding, and that the decision will be rendered in English.

6.2 Substantive Findings

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy directs that a complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order for the disputed domain name to be cancelled or transferred:

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

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

1. the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

On the basis of the arguments and evidence introduced by the Complainant, the Panel concludes as follows:

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Panel accepts that the Complainant has rights in the ASURION mark by virtue of its use and registration of the same as a trade mark.

The disputed domain names effectively incorporate the Complainant’s ASURION trade mark in its entirety. Neither the addition of the third party trade mark VERIZON nor the generic word “call” prevents a finding of confusing similarity in this case. The Panel notes that although Verizon Trademark Services LLC (owner of the VERIZON trade mark) is not joined as a party to these proceedings, it has consented to the

Complainant’s filing of the Complaint. The Complainant’s ASURION trade mark is clearly recognisable within the disputed domain names. The addition of the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” is a standard registration requirement and is generally disregarded for the purpose of the confusing similarity

assessment.

Consequently, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s

ASURION trade mark.

Accordingly, the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of the first element under paragraph 4(a) of the

Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, a complainant bears the burden of establishing that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. However, once the complainant makes a prima facie showing under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, the burden of production shifts to the respondent

to establish its rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name by demonstrating any of the
following, without limitation, under paragraph 4(c) of the Policy:

page 5

(i)        before any notice to it of the dispute, the respondent’s use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain name or a name corresponding to the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or

(ii)       the respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name, even if it has acquired no trade mark or service mark rights; or

(iii)      the respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trade mark or service mark at issue.

See Taylor Wimpey PLC, Taylor Wimpey Holdings Limited v. honghao Internet foshan co, ltd, WIPO Case
No. D2013-0974.

The Complainant has confirmed that the Respondent is not in any way affiliated with the Complainant or otherwise authorized or licensed to use the ASURION trade mark or to seek registration of any domain name incorporating the ASURION trade mark. The Respondent appears to be an individual by the name of “quan zhongjun”. There is no evidence suggesting that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name or that the Respondent has any rights in the term “asurion”.

According to the evidence submitted by the Complainant, each of the disputed domain names resolved to a parking webpage featuring sponsored links to third party websites, some of which purportedly offer services competitive to the Complainant’s business. Presumably, the Respondent receives PPC fees from the linked websites. UDRP panels have found that the use of a domain name to host a parked page comprising PPC

links does not represent a bona fide offering where such links compete with or capitalize on the reputation and goodwill of the complainant’s mark or otherwise mislead Internet users. See section 2.9 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”).

The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has made out a prima facie case showing that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. The burden of production thus shifts to the Respondent to establish rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. Since the Respondent did not file a response to the Complaint and has thus failed to offer any explanation for the registration of the disputed domain names, the prima facie case has not been rebutted.

Consequently, the Panel finds that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.

Accordingly, the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of the second element under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out four circumstances which, without limitation, shall be evidence of the registration and use of the disputed domain name in bad faith, namely:

(i)        circumstances indicating that the respondent has registered or acquired the disputed 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 trade mark or service mark or to a competitor of the complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the respondent’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the disputed domain name; or

(ii)       the respondent has registered the disputed domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trade mark 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

page 6

(iii)      the respondent has registered the disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or

1. by using the disputed domain name, the respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the respondent’s 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 the respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on the respondent’s website or location.

The consensus view of previous UDRP panels is that a domain name registrant is normally deemed responsible for content appearing on a website at its domain name, even if such registrant may not be exercising direct control over such content - for example, in the case of advertising links appearing on an “automatically” generated basis. The Panel notes the presumption that the Respondent or a third party stands to profit or make a “commercial gain” from advertising revenue by such an arrangement trading on third-party trade marks. In the Panel’s opinion, such links clearly seek to capitalize on the trade mark value of the Complainant’s ASURION trade mark. The Panel therefore determines that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its websites by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s websites, and the Panel finds that the circumstances referred to in paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy are applicable to the present case.

Furthermore, the Respondent has provided incomplete contact details to the Registrar at the time of registration of the disputed domain name, noting that the courier was unable to deliver the Center’s Written Notice to the physical address disclosed by the Registrar for the Respondent. This may be further indication of bad faith.

Taking into account all the circumstances, the Panel is satisfied that the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain names is in bad faith.

Accordingly, the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of the third element under paragraph 4(a) of 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 disputed domain names, <asurionverizon.com> and <callasurion.com>, be transferred to the

Complainant.

/Sok Ling MOI/
Sok Ling MOI
Sole Panelist
Date: February 7, 2023