Huntsman International, LLC v. Lavon Webb / Texas Lone Star Network
Claim Number: FA2105001944328
Complainant is Huntsman International, LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Steven M. Espenshade of Pirkey Barber PLLC, Texas, USA. Respondent is Lavon Webb / Texas Lone Star Network (“Respondent”), Texas, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <hr-huntsman.com>, registered with NameCheap, Inc..
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 May 8, 2021; the Forum received payment on May 8, 2021.
On May 10, 2021, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <hr-huntsman.com> domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameCheap, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameCheap, Inc. 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 10, 2021, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of June 1, 2021 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@hr-huntsman.com. Also on May 10, 2021, 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 June 4, 2021, 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 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
1. Respondent’s <hr-huntsman.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s HUNTSMAN mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <hr-huntsman.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and uses the <hr-huntsman.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent did not file a Response.
Complainant, Huntsman International, LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Huntsman Corporation, is a leading global chemical producer and manufacturer of products in the plastic, chemical, automotive, aviation, textile, and other global industries. Complainant holds a registration for the HUNTSMAN mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) (Reg. No. 2,038,875. Registered on Feb. 25, 1997).
Respondent registered the <hr-huntsman.com> domain name on March 15, 2021, and uses it to conduct a phishing scheme and to provide pay-per-click links.
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”).
The Panel finds that Complainant has rights in its HUNTSMAN mark through registration with the USPTO. See Liberty Global Logistics, LLC v. damilola emmanuel / tovary services limited, FA 1738536 (Forum Aug. 4, 2017) (stating, “Registration of a mark with the USPTO sufficiently establishes the required rights in the mark for purposes of the Policy.”).
Respondent’s <hr-huntsman.com> domain name uses the HUNTSMAN mark and simply adds the letters “hr,” a hyphen, and the “.com” gTLD. A domain name may be found identical or confusingly similar to a complainant’s mark where a complainant’s mark is wholly incorporated, despite the addition of letters and punctuation marks in a domain name. See Bittrex, Inc. v. Sergey Valerievich Kireev / Kireev, FA 1784651 (Forum June 5, 2018) (holding that the domain name consists of the BITTREX mark and adds “the letters ‘btc’ and the gTLD .com which do not distinguish the Domain Name from Complainant’s mark.”); see also Blizzard Entertainment, Inc. v. XINXIU ZENG / haimin liang, FA 1736365 (Forum July 19, 2017) (finding that the addition of punctuation—specifically, a hyphen—did not sufficiently distinguish the disputed domain name from complainant’s registered mark). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent’s <hr-huntsman.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s HUNTSMAN 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 does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <hr-huntsman.com> domain name because Respondent is not commonly known by the <hr-huntsman.com> domain name. Complainant has not licensed or otherwise permitted Respondent to use its HUNTSMAN mark. The WHOIS of record identifies Respondent as “Lavon Webb”. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the <hr-huntsman.com> domain name, and thus has no rights under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Indeed, Inc. v. Ankit Bhardwaj / Recruiter, FA 1739470 (Forum Aug. 3, 2017) (”Respondent lacks both rights and legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant’s trademark in any capacity and, as discussed below, there are no Policy ¶ 4(c) circumstances from which the Panel might find that Respondent has rights or interests in respect of the at-issue domain name.”); see also Am. W. Airlines, Inc. v. Paik, FA 206396 (Forum Dec. 22, 2003) (“Respondent has registered the domain name under the name ‘Ilyoup Paik a/k/a David Sanders.’ Given the WHOIS domain name registration information, Respondent is not commonly known by the [<awvacations.com>] domain name.”).
Complainant also argues that Respondent is not using the <hr-huntsman.com> domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or service or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use because the domain name’s resolving website displays links unrelated to the Complainant. Using a domain name to host third party links unrelated to Complainant is not a bona fide offering of goods or service or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Syed Hussain / Domain Management, FA1410001582912 (Forum Nov. 10, 2014) (concluding that the respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to host hyperlinks, unrelated to the complainant’s business, did not qualify as a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)). Complainant provides screenshots of the resolving domain name showing a list of hyperlinks that are unrelated to Complainant. The Panel finds that this is not a bona fide offering of goods or service or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, and thus Respondent has no rights under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii).
Complainant further argues that Respondent is not using the <hr-huntsman.com> domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or service or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use because Respondent is using an email address associated with the <hr-huntsman.com> domain name to pass off as Complainant in furtherance of a phishing scheme. Using an email address to impersonate a complainant to obtain personal information from users is also not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii). See Cubist Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Gregory Stea, FA1403001550388 (Forum May 5, 2014) (“Respondent is using the domain name in emails to various IT hardware suppliers in an attempt to impersonate Complainant and defraud its customers. The domain name also resolved to a website similar to Complainant's website. The Panel found that such actions precluded a bona fide offer or fair use.”). Complainant provides an example of the email phishing scheme using the disputed domain name, where Respondent poses as “Cynthia Egan” from Complainant’s HR department and seeks personal information from users. The Panel finds that this is further evidence that Respondent has no rights under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii).
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Complainant argues that Respondent registered and uses the <hr-huntsman.com> domain name in bad faith because Respondent is using the <hr-huntsman.com> domain name to pass off as Complainant in furtherance of a phishing scheme to obtain personal information. The Panel agrees and finds that Respondent registered and used the <hr-huntsman.com> domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Chevron Intellectual Property, LLC v. Jack Brooks, FA 1635967 (Forum Oct. 6, 2015) (finding that Respondent’s use of <chevron-corps.com> to impersonate an executive of Complainant in emails is in opposition to Complainant and is therefore in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)); see also Emdeon Business Services, LLC v. HR Emdeon Careers, FA1507001629459 (Forum Aug. 14, 2015) (finding that the respondent had engaged in an email phishing scheme indicating bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii), where respondent was coordinating the disputed domain name to send emails to Internet users and advising them that they had been selected for a job interview with the complainant and was persuading the users to disclose personal information in the process).
Complainant also argues that Respondent registered and uses the <hr-huntsman.com> domain name in bad faith because Respondent uses the <hr-huntsman.com> domain name to maintain a pay-per-click site displaying links unrelated to Complainant. Using a domain name to host a pay-per-click site with links unrelated to Complainant is evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Williams-Sonoma, Inc. v. Fees, FA 937704 (Forum Apr. 25, 2007) (holding that the use of a confusingly similar domain name to display links to various third-party websites demonstrated bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)). Accordingly, the Panel finds bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
Complainant contends that Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the HUNTSMAN mark. Complainant argues that it is well-known in the chemical industry, and Respondent uses Complainant’s mark in emails to pass off as Complainant. The Panel finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the HUNTSMAN mark when it registered the disputed domain name, demonstrating further bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Yahoo! Inc. v. Butler, FA 744444 (Forum Aug. 17, 2006) (finding bad faith where the respondent was “well-aware” of the complainant’s YAHOO! mark at the time of registration).
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <hr-huntsman.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist
Dated: June 7, 2021
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page