Corning Incorporated v John Olin

WIPO Case No. D2024-1113

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Corning Incorporated v. John Olin

Case No. D2024-1113

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Corning Incorporated, United States of America (“United States”), represented by

Gowling WLG (Canada) LLP, Canada.

The Respondent is John Olin, United States.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <finance-corning.com> (the “Domain Name”) is registered with GMO Internet,

Inc. d/b/a Onamae.com (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 14, 2024. On March 14, 2024, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On March 15, 2024, 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 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the
Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on March 18, 2024. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph
5, the due date for Response was April 7, 2024. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly,
the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 10, 2024.

The Center appointed Michelle Brownlee as the sole panelist in this matter on April 12, 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

page 2

4. Factual Background

The Complainant is a publicly traded corporation that specializes in materials science, particularly in the areas of glass, ceramics and optical physics.

The Complainant owns multiple registrations for the trademark CORNING in the United States and other jurisdictions around the world, including the following:

United States registration number 545056, with a registration date of July 17, 1951;

United States registration number 618649, with a registration date of January 3, 1956; and

United States trademark registration number 918,421, with a registration date of August 17, 1971.

The Complainant operates a website at the URL “

The Domain Name was registered on February 15, 2024. The Domain Name is inactive.

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 Domain Name.

Notably, the Complainant contends that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to its CORNING trademark, which the Complainant submits is well-known. The Complainant states that its stock is traded on the New York Stock in business for 165 years, with annual revenue in 2018 of over USD 11 billion. The Complainant argues that the Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name and that the Domain Name was registered and is used in bad faith.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

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 Domain Name. 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 a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy.
WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1.

The entirety of the mark is reproduced within the Domain Name. Accordingly, the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.

Although the addition of other terms here, “finance-” may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such term does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8.

page 3

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 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 Domain Name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise.

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, the Panel notes that the Respondent has registered the Domain Name which incorporates the Complainant’s well-known trademark and has not filed any response to offer a good faith reason for use of the term “corning” in the Domain Name. It bears mention that the Complainant’s headquarters are in the city of Corning, New York. Thus, it is conceivable that someone could register a domain name that includes the word “corning” in good faith, for example, if they were operating a business that was located in the city of Corning. In the present case, because the Respondent is not located in or near Corning, New York and has not submitted any response to set forth a good faith intention for the registration of the Domain Name, the Complainant’s trademark registrations predate the registration of the Domain Name by many years, and the Complainant operates <corning.com>, the Panel concludes that the Respondent’s intention in registering the Domain Name was more likely than not to create confusion with the Complainant’s trademark. Under the circumstances, the Panel finds that it is more likely than not that the Domain Name was registered in bad faith.

Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out a list of non-exhaustive circumstances that may indicate that a domain name was registered and used in bad faith, but other circumstances may be relevant in assessing whether a respondent’s registration and use of a domain name is in bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.1.

Panels have found that the non-use of a domain name would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the panelists will look at the totality of the circumstances in each case, factors that have been considered relevant in applying the passive holding doctrine include: (i) the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant’s mark, (ii) the failure of the respondent to submit a response or to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good-faith use, and (iii) the respondent’s concealing its identity or use of false contact
doctrine of passive holding. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds the non-use of the

page 4

details (noted to be in breach of its registration agreement). WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.3. Having
reviewed the available record, the Panel notes the reputation of the Complainant’s trademark, the
composition of the Domain Name, and the Respondent’s failure to submit a response or provide any
evidence of actual or contemplated good faith use, and finds that in the circumstances of this case the

passive holding of the Domain Name does not prevent a finding of bad faith under the Policy.

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 Domain Name <finance-corning.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Michelle Brownlee/
Michelle Brownlee
Sole Panelist
Date: April 20, 2024