About Intellectual Property IP Training IP Outreach IP for… IP and... IP in... Patent & Technology Information Trademark Information Industrial Design Information Geographical Indication Information Plant Variety Information (UPOV) IP Laws, Treaties & Judgements IP Resources IP Reports Patent Protection Trademark Protection Industrial Design Protection Geographical Indication Protection Plant Variety Protection (UPOV) IP Dispute Resolution IP Office Business Solutions Paying for IP Services Negotiation & Decision-Making Development Cooperation Innovation Support Public-Private Partnerships The Organization Working with WIPO Accountability Patents Trademarks Industrial Designs Geographical Indications Copyright Trade Secrets WIPO Academy Workshops & Seminars World IP Day WIPO Magazine Raising Awareness Case Studies & Success Stories IP News WIPO Awards Business Universities Indigenous Peoples Judiciaries Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions Economics Gender Equality Global Health Climate Change Competition Policy Sustainable Development Goals Enforcement Frontier Technologies Mobile Applications Sports Tourism PATENTSCOPE Patent Analytics International Patent Classification ARDI – Research for Innovation ASPI – Specialized Patent Information Global Brand Database Madrid Monitor Article 6ter Express Database Nice Classification Vienna Classification Global Design Database International Designs Bulletin Hague Express Database Locarno Classification Lisbon Express Database Global Brand Database for GIs PLUTO Plant Variety Database GENIE Database WIPO-Administered Treaties WIPO Lex - IP Laws, Treaties & Judgments WIPO Standards IP Statistics WIPO Pearl (Terminology) WIPO Publications Country IP Profiles WIPO Knowledge Center WIPO Technology Trends Global Innovation Index World Intellectual Property Report PCT – The International Patent System ePCT Budapest – The International Microorganism Deposit System Madrid – The International Trademark System eMadrid Article 6ter (armorial bearings, flags, state emblems) Hague – The International Design System eHague Lisbon – The International System of Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications eLisbon UPOV PRISMA Mediation Arbitration Expert Determination Domain Name Disputes Centralized Access to Search and Examination (CASE) Digital Access Service (DAS) WIPO Pay Current Account at WIPO WIPO Assemblies Standing Committees Calendar of Meetings WIPO Official Documents Development Agenda Technical Assistance IP Training Institutions COVID-19 Support National IP Strategies Policy & Legislative Advice Cooperation Hub Technology and Innovation Support Centers (TISC) Technology Transfer Inventor Assistance Program WIPO GREEN WIPO's Pat-INFORMED Accessible Books Consortium WIPO for Creators WIPO ALERT Member States Observers Director General Activities by Unit External Offices Job Vacancies Procurement Results & Budget Financial Reporting Oversight

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Lumen Technologies, LLC v. Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 1248262377 / Sandra S, Johnson

Case No. D2020-3535

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Lumen Technologies, LLC, United States of America (“U.S”), represented by Wiley Rein LLP, U.S.

The Respondent is Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 1248262377, Canada / Sandra S, Johnson, Canada.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <lumuen.com> (‘the Domain Name’) is registered with Google LLC (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 29, 2020. On December 29, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On December 29, 2021, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint.

The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on January 11, 2021, 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 January 12, 2021.

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 January 19, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was February 8, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on February 11, 2021.

The Center appointed Dawn Osborne as the sole panelist in this matter on February 19, 2021. 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 the owner of the trade mark LUMEN, registered, inter alia, the U.S. Registration No. 6,122,949 since August 11, 2020. The Complainant announced its use of the new brand LUMEN on September 14, 2020. The Complainant owns “www.lumen.com”, which is the official website of the Complainant.

The Respondent registered the Domain Name on September 21, 2020, seven days after the Complainant announced it would be using the LUMEN brand going forward. The Domain Name does not resolve to an active site, but has been used in fraudulent emails which used the Complainant’s mark LUMEN and their logo and the name of one of the Complainant’s employees. Incorrect details appear to have been submitted to the WhoIs database in relation to the Domain Name.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant’s contentions can be summarised as follows:

The Complainant is the owner of the trade mark LUMEN, registered, inter alia, the U.S. Registration no 6,122,949 since August 11, 2020. The Complainant announced its use of the new brand LUMEN September 14, 2020. It owns <lumen.com>.

The Domain Name registered on September 21, 2020 is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s LUMEN mark adding only the letter “u” and the generic Top-Level Domain (‘gTLD’) “.com”, which do not prevent said confusing similarity.

The Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, is not commonly known by it and is not authorised by the Complainant.

The Domain Name does not resolve to an active site, but has been used for fraudulent emails using the Complainant’s LUMEN mark, logo and the name of one of the Complainant’s employees.

The Respondent has provided incorrect contact details for the WhoIs database and/or has tried to hide her activity behind a privacy service. The privacy service named in the WhoIs database denied it had been retained in relation to the Domain Name.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Domain Name combines the Complainant’s LUMEN mark (registered, inter alia, for telecommunications services since August 11, 2020) with the letter ‘u’ and the gTLD “.com”.

An additional letter and a gTLD do not prevent confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the Complainant’s mark per Policy paragraph 4(a)(i). Accordingly the addition of the letter ‘u’ and the gTLD .com to the Complainant’s mark does not prevent confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the Complainant’s mark.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a mark in which the Complainant has rights for the purpose of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant has not authorised the use of its LUMEN mark. The Respondent has not answered this Complaint and there is no evidence or reason to suggest the Respondent is, in fact, commonly known by the Domain Name, having been named as Sandra S, Johnson.

The Domain Name does not resolve to an active site, but has been used in a fraudulent phishing attempt using the Complainant’s mark, logo and the name of one of the Complainant’s employees. This is deceptive and confusing. As such it cannot amount to the bona fide offering of goods and services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.

Information originally given to the WhoIs database appears to be incorrect as the privacy service named denied that it had been retained in relation to the Domain Name. The Domain Name also appears to be a typosquatting registration designed to be confused with the Complainant’s mark differing from that mark by only one letter. Deliberately giving incorrect details to the WhoIs database about ownership of the Domain Name and typosquatting are both a further indication of a lack of rights or legitimate interest.

As such, the Panel finds that the Respondent does not have rights or a legitimate interest in the Domain Name and that the Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Respondent has not answered this Complaint or explained why it should be allowed to register a domain name containing a sign confusingly similar to the Complainant’s distinctive mark. The timing of the registration of the Domain Name seven days after the announcement by the Complainant that it would be using the LUMEN mark indicates that the registration was made in opportunistic bad faith.

Impersonating the Complainant by use of the Complainant’s mark in a fraudulent phishing attempt is disruptive and evinces bad faith registration and use. The use of the Complainant’s mark, logo and the name of one of the Complainant’s employees in the fraudulent phishing activity shows that the Respondent is aware of the Complainant, its rights, business and services.

Typosquatting and deliberately providing incorrect details for the WhoIs database about the ownership of a domain name are both also factors demonstrating bad faith registration and use under the Policy.

As such, the Panel believes that the Complainant has made out its case that the Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith and has satisfied the third limb 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 <lumuen.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Dawn Osborne
Sole Panelist
Date: February 19, 2020

https://www3.wipo.int/contact/en/area.jsp?area=arbitration https://www.wipo.int/pressroom/en/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/en/disclaim.html https://www.wipo.int/en/web/privacy-policy/ https://www.wipo.int/en/web/accessibility/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/en/sitemap.html https://www3.wipo.int/newsletters/en/ https://www.wipo.int/podcasts/en/ https://www.wipo.int/news/en/