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

Cincinnati Bell, Inc. v. Paul Loveless

Case No. DME2021-0019

1. The Parties

Complainant is Cincinnati Bell, Inc., United States of America (“United States”), represented by Frost Brown Todd LLC, United States.

Respondent is Paul Loveless, United States.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <cincinnatibell.me> is registered with Wild West Domains, LLC (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 30, 2021. On January 4, 2022, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On January 4, 2022, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response stating 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 7, 2022. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was January 27, 2022. Although the Center received an email communication from Respondent on January 13, 2022, Respondent did not submit a formal response to the Complaint.

The Center appointed Lorelei Ritchie as the sole panelist in this matter on February 14, 2022. 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 telecommunications company based in the city of Cincinnati, Ohio. Complainant has been offering telecommunications services for over a century, and specifically under the mark CINCINNATI BELL since at least 1984.

Complainant owns trademarks for the CINCINNATI BELL mark in the United States, where Respondent lists an address of record. These include, among others, United States Registration Nos. 3,942,521 (registered April 12, 2011) and 5,052,989 (registered October 4, 2016). Complainant further owns the registration for the domain name <cincinnatibell.com>, which Complainant uses to connect with consumers, and to inform them of its products and services.

The disputed domain name was registered on December 17, 2021.

Although the disputed domain name is not currently linked to an active website, Respondent has informed Complainant that Respondent will use the disputed domain name to “generate impression and ad revenue” if Complainant does not purchase the disputed domain name from Respondent.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

Complainant contends that (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademarks, (ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and (iii) Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.

Specifically, Complainant contends that it owns the CINCINNATI BELL mark, and that the mark is “well known”, particularly in the city of Cincinnati, Ohio, where Complainant is based and where Respondent lists an address of record. Complainant contends that Respondent has incorporated the mark CINCINNATI BELL in full into the disputed domain name.

Complainant contends that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. Rather, Complainant contends that Respondent has acted in bad faith in registering and using the disputed domain name, when Respondent clearly knew of Complainant’s rights, and that Respondent has further attempted to profit by contacting Complainant for the purpose of offering the disputed domain name for sale in excess of reasonable costs. In its communications with Complainant, Respondent indicated that if Complainant failed to purchase the disputed domain name, then Respondent would use it to “generate impression and ad revenue” to Respondent’s “financial advantage” since “the domain makes revenue” and “[a]ny action against me will certainly take some time”.

B. Respondent

The Center received an email communication from Respondent on January 13, 2022. Respondent did not submit a formal response to the Complaint, and did not address Complainant’s contentions in this proceeding.

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Panel must first determine whether the disputed domain name <cincinnatibell.me> is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

The Panel finds that it is.

The disputed domain name incorporates in full Complainants’ CINCINNATI BELL mark. The disputed domain name uses the country code Top-Level Domain “.me”.

Typically a Top-Level Domain name may be disregarded for purposes of considering this first element. SeeWIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0”), Paragraph 1.11.

The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights in accordance with paragraph (4)(a)(i) of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Panel next considers whether Complainant has shown that Respondent has no “rights or legitimate interest” as must be proven to succeed in a UDRP dispute. Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy gives examples that might show rights or legitimate interests in a domain name. These examples include: (i) use of the domain name “in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services”; (ii) demonstration that respondent has been “commonly known by the domain name”; or (iii) “legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue”.

No evidence has been presented to the Panel that might support a claim of Respondent’s rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and Respondent has no license from, or other affiliation with Complainant.

Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant has provided sufficient evidence for a prima facie case of Respondent’s lack of “rights or legitimate interests” in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, which Respondent has not rebutted.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

There are several ways that a complainant can demonstrate that a domain name was registered and used in bad faith. As noted in Section 4 of this Panel’s decision, the disputed domain name is not currently linked to an active website. It is nevertheless well established that having a passive website does not necessarily shield a respondent from a finding of bad faith. SeeWIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.3, which notes that the “non-use of a domain name” does not necessarily negate a finding of bad faith. Rather, a panel must examine “the totality of the circumstances”.

As noted above, Respondent contacted Complainant with an offer to sell the disputed domain name, indicating that if Complainant failed to purchase the registration, Respondent would use it for Respondent’s own “financial advantage”. The Panel finds sufficient evidence that Respondent “registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling for valuable consideration in excess of documented out-of-pocket costs”, in a showing of bad faith as contemplated by paragraph 4(b)(i) of the Policy. See Ticketmaster Corp. v. Spider Web Design, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2000-1551.

Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith for purposes of 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 name <cincinnatibell.me> be transferred to Complainant.

Lorelei Ritchie
Sole Panelist
Date: February 28, 2022

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/