CC Media Network, Ltd. v Domain Administrator, See PrivacyGuardian.org /

WIPO Case No. D2022-1916

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

CC Media Network, Ltd. v. Domain Administrator, See PrivacyGuardian.org /
Zhichao Yang

Case No. D2022-1916

1. The Parties

The Complainant is CC Media Network, Ltd. c/o Walters Law Group, United States of America (“United

States”).

The Respondent is Domain Administrator, See PrivacyGuardian.org, United States / Zhichao Yang, China.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <camcontracts.com> is registered with NameSilo, LLC (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 26, 2022. On May 27, 2022, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On May 28, 2022, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on May 31, 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 on May 31, 2022.

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”).

In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on June 7, 2022. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was June 27, 2022. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on June 29, 2022.

page 2

The Center appointed Marina Perraki as the sole panelist in this matter on July 5, 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

Complainant owns and operates the website at the domain name <camcontacts.com> offering adult entertainment services. Complainant has used this domain name for more than two decades in connection with the provision of a network of adult webcams.

The Complainant relies on the United States trademark registration no 4124 572, CAMCONTACTS, filed on
May 17, 2011, and registered on April 10, 2012, for services in international classes 38 and 41.

The Domain Name was registered on February 2, 2018, and leads to a website which contains links offering adult entertainment services, including adult themed performances. Currently the Domain Name redirects to another site with adult content. Complainant sent a cease-and-desist letter to Respondent on April 19, 2022, to which Respondent did not reply.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

Complainant asserts that it has established all three elements required under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy for the transfer of the Domain Name.

B. Respondent

Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy lists the three elements which Complainant must satisfy with respect to the

Domain Name:

(i) the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant

has rights;

(ii) 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

Complainant has demonstrated it has rights in the CAMCONTACTS mark for purposes of the Policy.

The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the CAMCONTACTS trademark.

The Domain Name incorporates the said trademark in its entirety with the sole addition of the letter “r”
between the letters “t” and “a”. This is sufficient to establish confusing similarity (WIPO Overview of WIPO
Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7).

page 3

The generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” is disregarded, as gTLDs typically do not form part of the comparison on the grounds that they are generally required for technical reasons (Rexel Developpements SAS v. Zhan Yequn, WIPO Case No. D2017-0275).

Complainant has established Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i).

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Pursuant to paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, Respondent may establish its rights or legitimate interests in the
Domain Name, among other circumstances, by showing any of the following elements:

(i) before any notice to you [Respondent] 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 [Respondent] (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 [Respondent] 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.

The Panel concludes that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name.

Respondent has not submitted a formal response to Complainant’s contentions and has not claimed any such rights or legitimate interests with respect to the Domain Name. As per the Complaint, Respondent was not authorized to register the Domain Name.

Respondent did not demonstrate prior to the notice of the dispute any use of the Domain Name or a name corresponding to the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.

On the contrary, as Complainant demonstrates, the Domain Name leads to a website offering competing services to those of Complainant.

Per the Complaint, Respondent is not an affiliated entity or an authorized entity of Complainant and no
agreement, express or otherwise, exists allowing Respondent to use the CAMCONTACTS trademark in the
Domain Name.

The Panel finds that these circumstances do not confer upon Respondent any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name.

Complainant has established Policy, paragraph 4(a)(ii).

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides that the following circumstances, “in particular but without limitation”, are evidence of the registration and use of the Domain Name in bad faith:

(i) circumstances indicating that Respondent has registered or has acquired the Domain Name primarily for
the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the Domain Name registration to Complainant who is
the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that Complainant, for valuable consideration
in excess of its documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the Domain Name; or

(ii) that 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

page 4

(iii) that Respondent has registered the Domain Name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of

a competitor; or

(iv) that by using the Domain Name, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, location or of a product or service on Respondent’s website or location.

Internet users to Respondent’s website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with

The Panel concludes that Respondent has registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith. Because the CAMCONTACTS trademark had been used and registered at the time of the Domain Name registration by Respondent, noting also that Complainant has used the domain name <camcontacts.com> for more than two decades, the Panel finds it more likely than not that Respondent had Complainant and the

CAMCONTACTS mark in mind when registering the Domain Name (Tudor Games, Inc. v. Domain
Hostmaster, Customer ID No. 09382953107339 dba Whois Privacy Services Pty Ltd / Domain Administrator,
Vertical Axis Inc., WIPO Case No. D2014-1754; Parfums Christian Dior v. Javier Garcia Quintas and

Christiandior.net, WIPO Case No. D2000-0226).

As regards bad faith use of the Domain Name, Complainant has demonstrated that the Domain Name leads
to a website offering competing services to those of Complainant. The Domain Name operates by
intentionally creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s business and the trademark
CAMCONTACTS as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the website to which it leads.
This is indicative of bad faith registration and use (Oculus VR, LLC v. Sean Lin, WIPO Case No.
DCO2016-0034; WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1.4).

Under these circumstances and on this record, the Panel finds that Respondent has registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith.

Complainant has established Policy paragraph 4(a)(iii).

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 name, <camcontracts.com> be transferred to Complainant.

/Marina Perraki/
Marina Perraki
Sole Panelist
Date: July 19, 2022