Corval Group, Inc. v. ea drat / Date LLC
Claim Number: FA2006001899167
PARTIES
Complainant is Corval Group, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Michael M. Lafeber, Minnesota, USA. Respondent is ea drat / Date LLC, (“Respondent”), Rhode Island, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <corvalgroup.us>, registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com.
The undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on June 5, 2020; the Forum received payment on June 5, 2020.
On June 9, 2020, PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <corvalgroup.us> domain name is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with the U.S. Depart of Commerce’s usTLD Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On June 12, 2020, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 2, 2020 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@corvalgroup.us. Also on June 12, 2020, 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 July 7, 2020, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Sandra J. Franklin 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 usTLD 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 usTLD Policy, usTLD 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
1. Respondent’s <corvalgroup.us> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s CORVAL GROUP mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <corvalgroup.us> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and uses the <corvalgroup.us> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent did not file a Response.
Complainant uses the CORVAL GROUP mark to identify its industrial contractor and engineering firm. Complainant holds a registration for the CORVAL GROUP mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 4,196,586, registered August 28, 2012).
Respondent registered the <corvalgroup.us> domain name on May 22, 2020, and uses it to pass itself off as Complainant and to conduct a phishing scheme.
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.
Given the similarity between the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“UDRP”) and the usTLD Policy, the Panel will draw upon UDRP precedent as applicable in rendering its decision.
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”).
The Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the CORVAL GROUP mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through its registration with the USPTO. See Intel Corp. v. Macare, FA 660685 (Forum Apr. 26, 2006) (finding that the complainant had established rights in the PENTIUM, CENTRINO and INTEL INSIDE marks by registering the marks with the USPTO).
Respondent’s <corvalgroup.us> domain name uses the CORVAL GROUP mark and merely adds the “.us” ccTLD. The addition of a ccTLD to a domain name that fully incorporates a mark does not overcome the confusing similarity of the two. See Allied Bldg. Prods. Corp. v. Henkel, FA 827652 (Forum Dec. 11, 2006) (holding that “it is well established that the top-level domain, here “.us,” is insignificant with regard to UDRP analysis” when determining confusing similarity). The Panel finds that Respondent’s <corvalgroup.us> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s CORVAL GROUP mark.
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Once Complainant makes a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)); see also Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) (“Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests”).
Complainant argues that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <corvalgroup.us> domain name, as Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Respondent has not been authorized by Complainant to use CORVAL GROUP in a domain name. The WHOIS information identifies Respondent as "ea drat/date llc.” Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the <corvalgroup.us> domain name, and thus has no rights under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Reese v. Morgan, FA 917029 (Forum Apr. 5, 2007) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <lilpunk.com> domain name as there was no evidence in the record showing that the respondent was commonly known by that domain name, including the WHOIS information as well as the complainant’s assertion that it did not authorize or license the respondent’s use of its mark in a domain name).
Complainant contends that Respondent is not using the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(ii) or (iv). Complainant provides screenshots of emails sent from an address associated with the disputed domain name soliciting payment from one of Complainant's customers. The Panel finds that this is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, and thus Respondent has no rights under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(ii) or (iv). See Walgreen Co. v. Privacy protection service - whoisproxy.ru, FA 1785188 (Forum June 10, 2018) (“Respondent uses the <walgreensviagra.net> domain name to pass itself off as Complainant and display links to a website offering products similar to those offered by Complainant. Using the domain name in this manner is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶4(c)(i), nor a non-commercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”).
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Complainant demonstrates that Respondent uses the disputed domain to pass off as Complainant and send fraudulent emails in a phishing scheme. The Panel finds that this is evidence of bad faith use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Qatalyst Partners LP v. Devimore, FA 1393436 (Forum July 13, 2011) (finding that using the disputed domain name as an e-mail address to pass itself off as the complainant in a phishing scheme is evidence of bad faith registration and use).
Complainant also contends that, in light of the fame and notoriety of Complainant's CORVAL GROUP mark, it is inconceivable that Respondent could have registered the <corvalgroup.us> domain name without actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the mark. Complainant provides news articles and press releases pertaining to projects and awards given to Complainant in support of the assertion that the mark is famous. The Panel also notes that Respondent uses the disputed domain name to impersonate Complainant, and finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the CORVAL GROUP mark when it registered the domain name, which is evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Univision Comm'cns Inc. v. Norte, FA 1000079 (Forum Aug. 16, 2007) (rejecting the respondent's contention that it did not register the disputed domain name in bad faith since the panel found that the respondent had knowledge of the complainant's rights in the UNIVISION mark when registering the disputed domain name).
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Having established all three elements required under the usTLD Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <corvalgroup.us> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist
Dated: July 7, 2020
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page