Corning Incorporated v Jing Chen

WIPO Case No. D2024-0830

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Corning Incorporated v. Jing Chen

Case No. D2024-0830

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Corning Incorporated, United States of America, represented by Gowling WLG LLP,

Canada.

The Respondent is Jing Chen, China.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <corning-china.com> is registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 24, 2024. On February 26, 2024, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On February 26, 2024, 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 (Redacted for Privacy) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on March 1, 2024, 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 amendment to the Complaint on March 9, 2024.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to 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 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the
Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on March 13, 2024. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph
5, the due date for Response was April 2, 2024. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly,
the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 3, 2024

page 2

The Center appointed Masato Dogauchi as the sole panelist in this matter on April 10, 2024. 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 is a publicly traded company in the New York Stock Exchange. The Complainant has been doing business, among others, in glass science, ceramic science, optical physics for more than 165 years. The Complainant generated USD 11.29 billion in 2018.

The Complainant is the owner of over 325 trademark registrations worldwide for trademarks comprised of, or containing, CORNING, for instance, as follows:

- The United States Registration for CORNING, No. 618649, registered on January 3, 1956;

- Canadian Registration for CORNING, No. TMA186211, registered on October 20, 1972;

- Chinese Registration for CORNING, No. 576489, registered on December 20, 1991.

The Complainant also operates a website at <corning.com>.

The disputed domain name was registered on January 27, 2024, and resolves to a pay-per-click website displaying links to competitors of the Complainant as well as links to sites selling goods and services that compete with, or rival, those offered by the Complainant.

5. Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain name.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 15(a), a panel shall decide a case on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, the Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable. Since the Respondent has not made any arguments in this case, the following decision is rendered on the basis of the Complainant’s contentions and other evidence submitted by the Complainant.

In accordance with the Policy, paragraph 4(a), in order to qualify for a remedy, the Complainant must prove each of the following:

(i)        the disputed 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 disputed domain name; and

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

page 3

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7.

The Complainant has shown rights in respect of the CORNING trademark for the purposes of the Policy.

WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1.

The main part of the disputed domain name before “.com”, is “corning-china”. The entirety of the
Complainant’s CORNING trademark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. The fact that the
disputed domain name includes the term representing a country, “china” does nothing to prevent confusion.
Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark for the purposes of the Policy.

WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7

Accordingly, the Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which the Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name.

Although the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the difficult task of “proving a negative”, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. As such, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name (although the burden of proof always remains on the complainant). If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant

evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.0, section
2.1.

Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not rebutted the Complainant’s prima facie showing and has not come forward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise.

Accordingly, the Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Panel notes that, for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, paragraph 4(b) of the Policy establishes circumstances, in particular, but without limitation, that, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith.

In the present case, in consideration of the fact that the Complainant has been doing business, among others, in glass science, ceramic science, optical physics for more than 165 years, and that the Complainant generated USD 11.29 billion in 2018, it is highly unlikely that the Respondent could have been unaware of the Complainant’s trademarks at the time of registration of the disputed domain name on January 27, 2024. Therefore, it is found that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith.

page 4

With regard to the requirement that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name in bad faith, the Panel considers that the fact that the disputed domain name resolves to a pay-per-click website displaying links to competitors of the Complainant as well as links to sites selling goods and services that compete with, or rival, those offered by the Complainant, constitutes bad faith use. The Panel holds that the Respondent cannot disclaim responsibility for such contents appearing on the website associated with the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.5.

The Respondent did not reply to the Complaint in this proceeding.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element 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 name <corning-china.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Masato Dogauchi/
Masato Dogauchi
Sole Panelist
Date: April 24, 2024