ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION HDMl Licensing Administrator, Inc. v. S Kumar, Knoxed Limited Case No. D2018-2514 1. The Parties

The Complainant is HDMl Licensing Administrator, Inc. of San Jose, California, United States of America (“United States”), represented by C.V. SNB-REACT u.a., Netherlands.

The Respondent is S Kumar, Knoxed Limited of Kidlington, United Kingdom, represented by UDRP Legal, United Kingdom. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name (the “Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with GoD, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 2, 2018. On November 2, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On November 5, 2018, 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 November 6, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was November 26, 2018. Upon request of the Respondent, the due date for Response was automatically extended to November 30, 2018, in accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(b). The due date for Response was further extended to December 17, 2018, upon request by the Respondent which was not opposed by the Complainant. The proceeding was suspended December 7, 2018 to January 31, 2019, by joint Party request in accordance with the Rules, paragraph 17. Upon request of the Complainant, the proceeding was reinstituted on January 29, 2019 and the due date for Response was duly extended to February 8, 2019. The Response was filed with the Center on February 8, 2019.

The Center appointed John Swinson as the sole panelist in this matter on February 18, 2019. 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 HDMI Licensing Administrator, Inc, a company incorporated in the United States. The Complainant owns a number of registered trade marks for HDMI, including European Union Trade Mark registration number 002790970, registered on October 22, 2004 (the “Trade Mark”).

The Complainant licenses the Trade Mark to “Adopters”, who are manufacturers and distributors of the Complainant’s HDMI products. The Complainant has been using the Trade Mark internationally for many years in respect of its connectors and cables. The Complainant also owns several domains which incorporate the Trade Mark including and .

The Respondent is S Kumar, Knoxed Limited. The Respondent operates a website at the Disputed Domain Name selling HDMI cords as well as other similar goods. The Disputed Domain Name was registered on August 3, 2007. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant

The Complainant makes the following submissions.

Identical or confusingly similar

The Disputed Domain Name incorporates the entirety of the Trade Mark, with only the addition of “UK”. The Trade Mark is clearly recognizable in the Disputed Domain Name. The Disputed Domain Name is either identical or very confusingly similar to the Complainant’s Trade Mark.

Rights and legitimate interests

The Respondent has no connection or affiliation with the Complainant and the Respondent has never been authorized licensee of the Complainant.

The Trade Mark may only be used by authorized licensees who have entered into an Adopter Agreement with the Complainant. The source of the HDMI products on the website at the Disputed Domain Name is unknown by the Complainant. The Respondent may be sourcing the products from unauthorized licensees or selling its own products unlawfully bearing the Trade Mark.

The Respondent is also using the website at the Disputed Domain Name to sell products that are not branded with HDMI marks. Further, the website does not mention that the Respondent is not an authorized manufacturer or distributor of the Complainant.

Registered and used in bad faith

The Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s website.

This confusion is caused by virtue of the Disputed Domain Name itself, as the website does not accurately and prominently disclose the Respondent’s relationship with the Complainant. B. Respondent

The Respondent makes the following submissions.

The Respondent is a reseller of the Complainant’s Adopters and uses the mark to identify the source of HDMI cables and accessories. The Respondent states that the Complainant does not manufacture or sell any products but instead licenses its products. The Complainant does not control the distribution or resale of its products.

The Respondent has rights and legitimate interests as it meets the requirements set out in the case of Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2001-0903 (“Oki Data”) as an unauthorized reseller of the Complainant’s goods. The website at the Disputed Domain Name discloses the Respondent’s relationship with the Complainant, the Respondent sells the trade marked goods, the Respondent does not sell other goods, and the