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

Intel Corporation v. Losangelesnews Inc., Los Angeles news

Case No. D2021-0049

1. The Parties

Complainant is Intel Corporation, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Sideman & Bancroft LLP, United States.

Respondent is Losangelesnews Inc., Los Angeles news, United States.

2. The Domain Names and Registrar

The disputed domain names <intle.com> and <inyel.com> (the “Domain Names”) are registered with Sea Wasp, LLC (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 8, 2021. On January 8, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Names. On January 9, 2021, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on January 11, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was January 31, 2021. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on February 1, 2021.

The Center appointed Christopher S. Gibson as the sole panelist in this matter on March 31, 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

Complainant is a company that develops, manufactures and sells a wide variety of goods and services in the computer hardware, software and technology industries. Since its founding in 1968, Complainant has used its INTEL trademark, which is a coined term originating from the combination of the words “integrated” and “electronics”. Complainant’s longtime use of the INTEL mark, and its extensive investment and efforts in promoting the mark, have arguably made it a famous mark. From 1993 to the present, INTEL has been regularly named one of the world’s most valuable brands by Financial World Magazine and Interbrand Market Research Company. In 2020, the INTEL brand was ranked 12th in the world in Interbrand’s Best Global Brands survey, with an estimated value of approximately USD 37 billion. Because of marketing and promotion, Complainant’s INTEL mark is a well known distinctive indicator of Complainant’s goods and services, especially in the United States where Complainant is headquartered and Respondent is located. Complainant owns a global portfolio of registrations for its INTEL mark. Complainant has provided a representative sample of these registrations. Complainant registered its INTEL mark years prior to the date Respondent registered the Domain Names, including the United States trademark registration No. 1022563 registered on October 14, 1975.

Complainant also owns the domain name <intel.com>, which was registered on March 25, 1986 and used by Complainant in connection with its business. The Domain Name was registered over a decade prior to the date Respondent registered the Domain Names.

The Domain Names <intle.com> and <inyel.com> were registered on August 31, 1997 and October 7, 1997, respectively. They were used most recently to redirect users to an obscenity-filled political website attacking the Australian and Chinese governments, hosted at “www.south32.com”.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

(i) Identical or confusingly similar

Complainant states that the Domain Names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s strong and famous INTEL mark, and are typos of Complainant’s <intel.com> domain name. Complainant’s INTEL mark is clearly recognizable within the Domain Names. The <intle.com> Domain Name merely inverts the last two letters of both Complainant’s INTEL mark and <intel.com> domain name, which does not avoid the confusing similarity of the Domain Name with Complainant’s INTEL mark.

Complainant submits that the Domain Name <inyel.com> merely replaces the “t” in both Complainant’s INTEL mark and <intel.com> domain name with “y”, which is adjacent to “t” on a standard keyboard. Such a replacement does not avoid confusing similarity. Therefore, the Domain Names are confusingly similar with Complainant’s INTEL mark.

(ii) Rights or legitimate interests

Complainant states that Respondent has no basis to claim rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names and cannot produce evidence showing any rights or legitimate interests in them. Respondent is not commonly known as “Intle” or “Inyel”. According to the Registrar’s records, Respondent’s name is Losangelesnews Inc. There is no relationship between Complainant and Respondent, and Complainant has not licensed the INTEL mark to Respondent or authorized Respondent to register the Domain Names. Thus, Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests to the Domain Names on that basis.

Importantly, Complainant contends that Respondent has not used the Domain Names for bona fide or legitimate purposes. Respondent previously used the Domain Names to offer pornographic content. Complainant has submitted a printout of Respondent’s use of <intle.com> to offer adult content in 1998 and 1999, as shown by the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine. Now Respondent uses both Domain Names to redirect users to an obscenity-filled political website attacking the Australian and Chinese governments, hosted at “www.south32.com”. Given the similarity of the Domain Names to Complainant’s famous INTEL mark, and the fact that Respondent registered not one but two domain names that typo-squat on Complainant’s <intel.com> domain name, Complainant submits that Respondent was aware of Complainant’s INTEL mark and specifically targeted Complainant in bad faith to exploit users attempting to reach Complainant’s website. As such, Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the

Domain Names.

(iii) Registered and used in bad faith

Complainant states that Respondent is a serial typo-squatter having registered over 24,000 domain names, a number of which typo-squat and infringe on other well-known trademarks. A reverse WhoIs search of Respondent’s name and a list of some of Respondent’s typo-squatting domain names is provided in the evidence submitted by Complainant. Complainant emphasizes that tellingly, and as would be expected given Respondent’s massive typo-squatting, other UDRP panels have decided domain name cases against Respondent. See, e.g., Emerson Electric Co. v. Losangelesnews Inc. / Los Angeles News, FORUM Claim No. FA1808001800864; and The Toronto-Dominion Bank v. Los Angeles news film / Los Angeles news, FORUM Claim No. FA1903001835263 (where Respondent’s bad faith was established in part through its use of an obscenity-filled political website hosted at “www.south32.com”).

Complainant submits that Respondent registered the Domain Names to specifically target Complainant and those trying to access Complainant’s “www.intel.com” website. At the time Respondent registered the Domain Names, Complainant had been using its <intel.com> domain name for over a decade, and the INTEL mark was one of the world’s most valuable brands. Respondent then registered two Domain Names that typo-squatted on both Complainant’s famous INTEL mark and <intel.com> domain name and proceeded to offer pornographic content, indicating that Respondent intended to capitalize on Complainant’s INTEL mark and <intel.com> domain name, and to tarnish Complainant’s INTEL mark. By taking unfair advantage of, abusing, and otherwise engaging in behavior detrimental to Complainant’s INTEL mark, Respondent is using the Domain Names in bad faith.

B. Respondent

Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

In order to succeed on its Complaint, Complainant must demonstrate that the three elements set forth in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy have been satisfied. These elements are that:

(i) the Domain Names registered by Respondent are 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 Names; and

(iii) Respondent has registered and is using the Domain Names in bad faith.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

Complainant has demonstrated that it has well-established rights in its famous INTEL trademarks. Further, the Panel finds that the Domain Names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s INTEL marks. The Domain Name <intle.com> inverts the last two letters of Complainant’s INTEL mark, whereas the Domain Name <inyel.com> replaces the “t” in Complainant’s INTEL mark with “y”. These changes in the Domain Names do not avoid confusing similarity with Complainant’s INTEL mark, especially as each of the Domain Names contain sufficiently recognizable aspects of the INTEL mark. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.9 (“A domain name which consists of a common, obvious, or intentional misspelling of a trademark is considered by panels to be confusingly similar to the relevant mark for purposes of the first element”, and one example of this is “the inversion of letters and numbers” in the domain name); Marlink SA v. wire lord, WIPO Case No. D2020-2172 (finding confusing similarity where the domain name consisted of complainant’s MARLINK mark but with the order of the letters “l” and “i” inverted); Allstate Insurance Co. v. PrivacyProtect.org / Webs Services Pty, Aditya Roshni, WIPO Case No. D2011-0289 (finding <allsttae.com> confusingly similar to complainant’s ALLSTATE mark).

Accordingly, the Panel finds that each of the Domain Names is confusingly similar to Complainant’s INTEL trademarks, in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Regarding the second element of the Policy, section 2.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0, states, “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. If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element”.

Here, the Panel determines that Complainant has made out a prima facie case, while Respondent has failed to reply to Complainant’s contentions. The Panel finds that Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use Complainant’s INTEL trademarks; that Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Names or by the name “intel”; that Respondent has not used the Domain Names for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, nor used them in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services – instead, the Domain Names have previously linked to websites that presented pornographic content, as shown by the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine, and now redirect to an obscenity-filled political website attacking the Australian and Chinese governments, hosted at “www.south32.com”.

Given the similarity of the Domain Names to Complainant’s famous INTEL mark, as well as the facts that (i) Respondent registered two domain names which typo-squat on both Complainant’s INTEL mark and <intel.com> domain name, and (ii) Respondent has registered thousands of other domain names, some of which typo-squat and target other trademarks, the Panel finds, on the balance of the probabilities, that it is likely that Respondent was aware of Complainant’s INTEL mark and specifically targeted it in bad faith to exploit users attempting to reach Complainant’s website. As such, Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has made a prima facie showing of Respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Names, which has not been rebutted by Respondent. The Panel therefore finds that Complainant has established the second element of the Policy in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(ii).

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The third element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant demonstrate Respondent registered and is using the Domain Names in bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1, states, “bad faith under the UDRP is broadly understood to occur where a respondent takes unfair advantage of or otherwise abuses a complainant’s mark”.

Here, the Panel determines that the Domain Names were registered and are being used in bad faith. Based on the evidence, the Panel finds, on the balance of the probabilities, that Respondent, when it registered the Domain Names was aware of Complainant and its INTEL marks, and intentionally targeted those marks, when registering the Domain Names. As noted above, Respondent registered the Domain Names, which include minor changes to the INTEL mark (inverting the letters “”e” and “l”, or replacing the “t” with a “y”) so they are not identical to the mark, yet contain sufficiently recognizable aspects of the mark. The Domain Names have no independent dictionary word meaning. Thus, given the fame and distinctiveness of Complainant’s INTEL marks, the timing of the registration of the Domain Names years after Complainant had established strong rights in its INTEL marks, and the fact that the Domain Names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s marks, the Panel considers that the only logical conclusion is that Respondent targeted Complainant and its marks when registering the Domain Names. Moreover, Respondent has not submitted any Response to contest Complainant’s allegations. See Accenture Global Services Limited v. ICS Inc./PrivacyProtect.org, WIPO Case No. D2013-2098 (finding that it was unlikely that the respondent was unaware of complainant and its ACCENTURE mark at the time the disputed domain name was registered).

This point is further confirmed by Respondent’s use of the Domain Names. As discussed above, the Domain Names have been used to link to websites presenting pornographic content, and more recently redirect to an obscenity-filled political website attacking the Australian and Chinese governments, hosted at “www.south32.com”. By taking unfair advantage of and otherwise engaging in behavior detrimental to Complainant’s INTEL mark, Respondent is using the Domain Names in bad faith. See PRIMEDIA Special Interest Publications Inc. v. Anti-Globalization Domains, WIPO Case No. D2003-0869 (finding that the “misdirection of Internet users seeking Complainant’s website to a highly charged political website involves complainant in a political debate in which it has no part” and tarnishes complainant’s mark, constituting bad faith); AREVA Société Anonyme à Directoire et Conseil de Surveillance v. wangyongqiang, WIPO Case No. D2016-1100 (“It is the consensus opinion of prior UDRP panels that the intentional tarnishment of a complainant’s trademark by conduct such as linking pornographic images or wholly inappropriate information to an unrelated trademark constitutes evidence of bad faith registration and use of the domain name.”). Moreover, Respondent appears to have engaged in a pattern of trademark-abusive domain name registrations, including registering two domain names targeting Complainant’s mark. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.5.3; Missoni S.p.A. v. Easy Shop Ping, WIPO Case No. D2012-0117 (finding bad faith where respondent had registered a number of other domain names incorporating third parties’ well-known trademarks, exhibiting a pattern of abusive conduct).

In conclusion, in this case, where Respondent failed to submit a reply to Complainant’s contentions, the Panel determines that, for all of the above reasons, the Domain Names were registered and are being used in bad faith. Accordingly, Complainant has satisfied 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 Names <intle.com> and <inyel.com> be transferred to Complainant.

Christopher S. Gibson
Sole Panelist
Date: April 19, 2021

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/