Cognizant Technology Solutions U.S. Corporation v. badboy zeeeeem / badboyzeeeeem
Claim Number: FA2108001959517
Complainant is Cognizant Technology Solutions U.S. Corporation (“Complainant”), represented by David M. Kramer of DLA Piper LLP (US), District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is badboy zeeeeem / badboyzeeeeem (“Respondent”), Texas, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <newsiqnature.com>, registered with NameCheap, Inc..
The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Richard Hill as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on August 13, 2021; the Forum received payment on August 13, 2021.
On August 13, 2021, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <newsiqnature.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 August 16, 2021, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 7, 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@newsiqnature.com. Also on August 16, 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 September 10, 2021, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Richard Hill 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 states that it is a global leader in business and technology consulting services. It combines a passion for client satisfaction, technology innovation, deep industry and business process expertise, and a global, collaborative workforce. With over 100 delivery centers worldwide and approximately 260,000 employees as of July 31, 2018, Complainant is a member of the NASDAQ-100, the S&P 500, the Forbes Global 2000, and the Fortune 500 and is ranked among the top performing and fastest growing companies in the world. In 2011, Fortune magazine named it as the world's third most admired IT services company in the world. Furthermore, Complainant rose 10 places to #195 in the 2018 Fortune 500, with net revenue over $14.8 billion, a 9.8% year-over-year increase. On July 28, 2020, Complainant announced the acquisition of New Signature, one of the world’s largest independent Microsoft public cloud transformation specialists. Complainant has rights in the NEW SIGNATURE mark based upon its registration in the United States in 1970.
Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its NEW SIGNATURE mark since it consists of a slight misspelling of the mark, replacing the letter “g” with a “q”, and merely adding the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).
According to Complainant, Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name because Respondent is not licensed or permitted to use Complainant’s NEW SIGNATURE mark. Additionally, Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name in connection to a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use as Respondent uses the disputed domain name as a vehicle to impersonate Complainant and its business in a fraudulent email phishing scheme.
Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith because it is used to impersonate Complainant and to attempt to defraud customers through a fraudulent email phishing scheme. Additionally, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the NEW SIGNATURE mark at the time the disputed domain name was registered.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant owns the mark NEW SIGNATURE and uses it to offer business and technology consulting services.
Complainant’s rights in its mark date back to 1970.
The disputed domain name was registered in 2021.
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark.
Respondent uses the disputed domain name for a fraudulent email 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.
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 disputed domain name consists of a misspelling of Complainant’s mark, simply replacing the “g” with a “q” and adding the “.com” gTLD. Minor changes to a mark such as changing a letter and adding a gTLD are generally insufficient to negate confusing similarity between a domain name and a mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Staples, Inc. v. Whois Privacy Shield Services, FA 1617690 (Forum June 5, 2015) (holding that “Changing a single letter (especially when it is the final letter) is a minor enough change to support a finding of confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”); see also Chegg Inc. v. Company CEO / Qulity Programming, FA 1610061 (Forum Apr. 20, 2015) (finding confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) whereas “Respondent’s <chwgg.com> domain name is a simple misspelling of Complainant’s CHEGG.COM mark.”). Thus, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name: absent a reply, WHOIS information can be used to determine whether a Respondent is commonly known by a domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Bittrex, Inc. v. Operi Manaha, FA 1815225 (Forum Dec. 10, 2018) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <appbittrex.com> domain name where the WHOIS information listed Respondent as “Operi Manaha,” and nothing else in the record suggested Respondent was authorized to use the BITTREX mark.). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
Respondent uses the disputed domain name as a vehicle to impersonate Complainant and its business in a fraudulent email phishing scheme; the signature block of the fraudulent emails displays Complainant’s company name and the name of one of its departments. Passing off as a complainant is not considered a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See DaVita Inc. v. Cynthia Rochelo, FA 1738034 (Forum July 20, 2017) (”Passing off in furtherance of a phishing scheme is not considered a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use.”); see also Morgan Stanley v. Zhange Sheng Xu / Zhang Sheng Xu, FA1501001600534 (Forum Feb. 26, 2015) (“The Panel agrees that the respondent’s apparent phishing attempt provides further indication that the respondent lacks any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).”). Thus, the Panel finds that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). And the Panel finds that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Complainant alleges that Respondent had actual knowledge of its mark prior to registering the disputed domain name. In support, it alleges specifically that Respondent’s fraudulent emails impersonate its employees by including identical names and titles, and creating structurally-identical email addresses. However, it fails to provide evidence to support that specific allegation, because it has redacted the fraudulent emails produced as evidence to such an extent that the names of the senders and the signature blocks are not visible for the Panel. Consequently, the Panel finds that Complainant has failed to satisfy its burden of proving this specific allegation, whereas (as already noted) it has proven that Respondent did impersonate Complainant as a company and sent emails alleging to come from one of Complainant’s departments.
The signature block of one of the fraudulent emails is “New Signature”. This suffices to prove that Respondent impersonated Complainant. However, the Panel finds that this is not sufficient to prove that Respondent knew of Complainant’s mark. Thus the Panel finds that Complainant has failed to satisfy its burden of proving that Respondent knew of its mark (as opposed to its company name) prior to registering the disputed domain name. Consequently, the Panel will not discuss further the allegation that Respondent knew of Complainant’s mark when it registered the disputed domain name.
Respondent has not presented any plausible explanation for its use of Complainant’s mark. In accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel shall draw such inferences from Respondent’s failure to reply as it considers appropriate. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent did not have a legitimate use in mind when registering the disputed domain name.
Indeed, as already noted, Respondent uses the disputed domain name as a vehicle to impersonate Complainant and its business in a fraudulent email phishing scheme. This can be evidence of bad faith registration and use under the Policy. 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.); see also Capital One Financial Corporation and Capital One Bank v. Austin Howel, FA 289304 (Forum Aug. 11, 2004) (finding bad faith where respondent used complainant’s mark to fraudulently induce transfer of credit and personal identification information).
Moreover, by replacing the letter “g” with the letter “q” in Complainant’s mark, Respondent engages in typosquatting. A finding of typosquatting can evince bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Adorama, Inc. v. Moniker Privacy Services, FA1503001610020 (Forum May 1, 2015) (“Respondent has also engaged in typosquatting, which is additional evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). Respondents who capitalize on common typing errors engage in bad faith registration under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”). As such, the Panel finds bad faith typosquatting under 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 <newsiqnature.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Richard Hill, Panelist
Dated: September 13, 2021
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page