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

Dell Inc. v. Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot / Chen Hui, Gname

Case No. D2021-0721

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Dell Inc., United States of America (“United States” or “US”), represented by Simone Intellectual Property Services Asia Limited, Hong Kong, China.

The Respondent is Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot, United States / Chen Hui, Gname, Singapore.

2. The Domain Names and Registrar

The disputed domain names <dellagent.com>, <dellnetshop.com>, and <qjfjdell.com> are registered with Dynadot, LLC (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 10, 2021. On March 10, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On March 11, 2021, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain names, which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on March 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 March 15, 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 March 17, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 6, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 7, 2021.

The Center appointed Clive Duncan Thorne as the sole panelist in this matter on April 13, 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, Dell Inc., is a world leader in computers, computer accessories, and other computer-related products and services. It has developed a family of businesses, collectively known as “Dell Technologies”, that offers products and services related to technology, software, security, and other products.

Dell Technologies provides the essential infrastructure for organizations to build their digital future, transform IT, and protect their most important asset, information. Over the years the Complainant has invested heavily in marketing its products, devoted hundreds of millions of USD to advertising and promoting its products and services through media in many countries, including television, radio, magazines, newspapers, and the Internet.

The Complainant sells its products and services in over 180 countries, including China. In the fiscal year 2019 it generated USD 91.3 million in revenue and was listed as No. 35 on Fortune 500. The Complainant refers to its official US website “www.dell.com” and its official Chinese website “www.dell.com/zh-cn/shop.”

The Complainant has used the mark DELL and other marks incorporating DELL for many years for computer-related products and services. At Annex 4 to the complaint the Complainant exhibits details of the US marks relied upon. These are:

DELL TECHNOLOGIES No. 5651864 registered January 15, 2019.
DELL (logo) No. 1860272 registered October 25, 1994.
DELL (logo) No. 3215023 registered March 6, 2007.
DELL No. 2236785 registered April 6, 1999.
DELL No. 2794705 registered December 16, 2003.
DELL No. 2806789 registered January 20, 2004.
DELL No. 2806770 registered October 28, 2003.
DELL No. 2808852 registered January 27, 2004.

All of these registrations pre-date the registration of the disputed domain names on January 1, 2021.

The disputed domain names resolve to websites offering “adult content”.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant submits:

i. On the evidence the Complainant owns registered and unregistered trade mark rights in the mark DELL and that the three disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the mark DELL;

ii. There is no evidence that the Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names;

iii. The evidence shows that in registering and using the disputed domain names the Respondent is shown to have been “targeting” the Complainant’s mark DELL and that the Respondent has been using them to access websites, which it has set up and is operating offering “adult content”.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The evidence of the Complainant’s registered trade marks for the mark DELL set out in section 4 above establishes that it owns registered rights in the mark DELL.

It is also established from the evidence of the Complainant’s use of the mark DELL worldwide that it has acquired “substantial fame and recognition on a global basis” entitling it to unregistered rights in the mark DELL.

The disputed domain name <dellnetshop.com> consists of “dell” plus “net” plus “shop”; “net” and “shop” are descriptive of activities undertaken in conjunction with “dell” or as put by the Complainant, “a netshop operated by Dell”. In the Panel’s view, the disputed domain name <dellnetshop.com> is confusingly similar to the mark DELL.

The disputed domain name <dellagent.com> consists of “dell” plus “agent”, which, as put by the Complainant is descriptive of “an agent of Dell”. In the Panel’s view, the disputed domain name <dellagent.com> is confusingly similar to the mark DELL.

The disputed domain name <qjfjdell.com> consists of the meaningless combination of the letters “qjfj” plus “dell”. The fact that the letters are essentially meaningless does nothing to avoid the confusing similarity between this disputed domain name and the mark DELL.

The Panel also takes into account that it is well-established that the addition of the generic Top-Level Domain “.com” can be disregarded in considering confusing similarity.

Accordingly and in the absence of evidence to the contrary the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the mark DELL in which the Complainant has registered trade mark rights within paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant relies upon the fact that it has not authorized the Respondent to use the mark DELL. It has not licensed or otherwise authorized the Respondent to use the mark DELL and in particular to register domain names incorporating DELL.

There is no evidence that the Respondent is commonly known by any of the disputed domain names. The Complainant submits that there is no evidence of a legitimate, noncommercial or fair use of any of the disputed domain names. To the contrary, the evidence of the Respondent’s use adduced by the Complainant (set out in section 6C below) demonstrates that the disputed domain names were registered for the purpose of trading off the Complainant’s name, reputation and goodwill in the mark DELL.

In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names within paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Complainant submits that as a result of its use, the DELL mark, has acquired substantial fame and recognition. This is supported by the evidence of use adduced by the Complainant.

In the absence of any evidence to the contrary from the Respondent, the Panel finds the Complainant’s evidence set out above to be true.

The Complainant submits that the disputed domain names were “maliciously” registered by the Respondent with “clear” knowledge of the Complainant’s registered marks DELL. This is as a result of the “high degree” of reputation and recognition amongst relevant consumers on a global basis. The evidence of the Complainant’s long-term and extensive promotion of its goods and services globally under the mark DELL shows that it has achieved an “overwhelming reputation” in the mark DELL, which the Respondent would have had full knowledge of.

The Complainant relies upon the fact that the Respondent chose to utilize the mark DELL because it would have had a “clear awareness” of the mark.

The Complainant also relies upon the fact that all three of the disputed domain names resolve to websites set up by the Respondent and which offer “adult content”. Print outs of the content of the three websites are exhibited as Annex 5 to the Complaint and which the Panel finds contain “adult content”.

In the Panel’s view, there is no legitimate use of the disputed domain names by the Respondent. The Respondent is exploiting the Complainant’s rights in the mark DELL to attract Internet users to its websites so as to access the “adult content”. This will inevitably damage the Complainant’s goodwill in its mark. The Panel also takes into account that “per se illegitimate activity”, which in the Panel’s view would include “adult content” can never confer rights or legitimate interest on a Respondent and is manifestly considered evidence of bad faith. (See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 3.1.4).

In the absence of a Response, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used by the Respondent in bad faith within paragraph 4(a)(iii) 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 names; <dellagent.com>, <dellnetshop.com>, and <qjfjdell.com>, be transferred to the Complainant.

Clive Duncan Thorne
Sole Panelist
Date: April 22, 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/