Cognizant Technology Solutions U.S. Corporation v. james fitzgerald
Claim Number: FA1904001840820
Complainant is Cognizant Technology Solutions U.S. Corporation (“Complainant”), represented by David M. Kramer of DLA Piper LLP (US), District of Columbia, United States. Respondent is james fitzgerald (“Respondent”), Delaware, United States.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <coginzant.net>, registered with Wild West Domains, LLC..
The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and, to the best of her knowledge, has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.) as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on April 26, 2019; the Forum received payment on April 26, 2019.
On April 30, 2019, Wild West Domains, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <coginzant.net> domain name is registered with Wild West Domains, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Wild West Domains, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Wild West Domains, LLC registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On May 2, 2019, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of May 22, 2019 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@coginzant.net. Also on May 2, 2019, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts.
Having received no response from Respondent, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On May 28, 2019, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed the Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.) as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant is a global leader in business and technology consulting services. Complainant has the rights in the COGNIZANT mark through its registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g. 2,484,075, registered Sep. 4, 2001). Respondent’s <coginzant.net> is confusingly similar to Complainant’s COGNIZANT mark, as Respondent merely adds the generic top-level domain (gTLD) “.net” and transposes the letters “n” and “i” in the mark.
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <coginzant.net> domain name because Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use the COGNIZANT mark.
Respondent registered and uses the <coginzant.net> domain name in bad faith. Specifically, Respondent attempts to disrupt Complainant’s business and attract, for commercial gain, users to the disputed domain name by passing off through emails in furtherance of phishing. Respondent further engages in typosquatting. .
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant is a global leader in business and technology consulting services. Complainant has the rights in the COGNIZANT mark through its registration with the USPTO (e.g. 2,484,075, registered Sep. 4, 2001). Respondent’s <coginzant.net> is confusingly similar to Complainant’s COGNIZANT mark.
Respondent registered the <coginzant.net> domain name on December 19, 2018. Respondent engaged in typosquatting and made no active use of the domain name.
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <coginzant.net> domain name.
Respondent registered and uses the <coginzant.net> domain name in bad faith.
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable."
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred:
(1) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
(2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at ¶ 4.3; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (“Because Complainant did not produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations [. . .] the Panel finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint”).
Complainant has rights in the COGNIZANT mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through registration with the USPTO. See BGK Trademark Holdings, LLC & Beyoncé Giselle Knowles-Carter v. Chanphut / Beyonce Shop, FA 1626334 (Forum Aug. 3, 2015) (asserting that Complainant’s registration with the USPTO (or any other governmental authority) adequately proves its rights under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)).
Respondent’s <coginzant.net> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s COGNIZANT mark as Respondent merely adds the gTLD “.net” to Complainant’s mark in addition to using a slight misspelling of the mark.
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <coginzant.net> domain name. Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use the COGNIZANT mark. See Indeed, Inc. v. Ankit Bhardwaj / Recruiter, FA 1739470 (Forum Aug. 3, 2017) (a respondent that does not have authorization from a complainant to use a mark is evidence of lacking rights and legitimate interests under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)). The WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the registrant as “james fitzgerald.” Where a response is lacking, WHOIS information can be used to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. LY Ta, FA 1789106 (Forum June 21, 2018) (concluding a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name where the complainant asserted it did not authorize the respondent to use the mark, and the relevant WHOIS information indicated the respondent is not commonly known by the domain name). The Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the <coginzant.net> domain name.
Although Complainant makes no specific contention as to Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii), Respondent is not making a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name. The <coginzant.net> domain name resolves to a parked webpage. The failure to make an active use of a disputed domain name that is confusingly similar to a complainant’s registered mark is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name. See Thermo Electron Corp. v. Xu, FA 713851 (Forum July 12, 2006) (finding that the respondent’s non-use of the disputed domain names demonstrates that the respondent is not using the disputed domain names for a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)). In addition, typosquatting shows a lack of rights and interests.
Complainant contends that Respondent seeks to disrupt Complainant’s business and to attract, for commercial gain, users to the disputed domain name where Respondent uses the domain name to compete with Complainant and uses an email address to impersonate Complainant to solicit for third-parties’ information. See LoanDepot.com, LLC v. Kaolee (Kay) Vang-Thao, FA1762308 (Forum Jan. 9, 2018) (finding that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to offer competing loan services disrupts Complainant’s business under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)); see also Abbvie, Inc. v. James Bulow, FA 1701075 (Forum Nov. 30, 2016) (“Respondent uses the <abbuie.com> domain name to impersonate Complainant’s CEO. Such use is undeniably disruptive to Complainant’s business and demonstrates bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii), and/or Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)”). Here, Complainant fails to provide evidence of an email phishing scheme. Complainant only provides a screenshot of the disputed domain name’s resolving website which appears to be a parked webpage. Therefore, the Panel determines that Complainant has failed to show that Respondent has disrupted Complainant’s business through competition or use of a phishing scheme. However, Complainant’s evidence that the disputed domain name resolves to a parked webpage shows bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Caravan Club v. Mrgsale, FA 95314 (Forum Aug. 30, 2000) (failure to make active use of a domain name permits an inference of registration and use in bad faith).
Furthermore, Complaint has shown that Respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii), because Respondent engaged in typosquatting. See Vanguard Trademark Holdings USA LLC v. Shuai Wei Xu / Xu Shuai Wei, FA 1784238 (Forum June 1, 2018) (finding the respondent engaged in typosquatting—and thus registered and used the at-issue domain names in bad faith—where the names consisted of the complainant’s mark with small typographical errors introduced therein).
Complainant having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <coginzant.net> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.), Panelist
Dated: June 11, 2019
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page