Thornton Tomasetti, Inc. v. shaun payton
Claim Number: FA2108001961300
Complainant is Thornton Tomasetti, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Arthur Wellington, New York, USA. Respondent is shaun payton (“Respondent”), Maine, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <thorntontomasetti.us>, 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.
Charles A. Kuechenmeister, Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on August 26, 2021; the Forum received payment on August 26, 2021.
On August 26, 2021, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <thorntontomasetti.us> domain name (the 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 the U.S. Department of Commerce’s usTLD Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On August 27, 2021, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint setting a deadline of September 16, 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@thorntontomasetti.us. Also on August 27, 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 21, 2021, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Charles A. Kuechenmeister 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 ("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
Complainant provides architectural and engineering services. It has rights in the THORNTON TOMASETTI mark based upon its registration of that mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”). The <thorntontomasetti.us> Domain Name is identical to the THORNTON TOMASETTI mark as it matches the mark and Complainant’s company name.
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <thorntontomasetti.us> Domain Name since Complainant did not authorize Respondent to use its THORNTON TOMASETTI mark.
Respondent registered or uses the <thorntontomasetti.us> Domain Name in bad faith because it registered the Domain Name having no connection with Complainant and attempts to impersonate Complainant through email for fraudulent purposes.
B. Respondent
Respondent did not submit a Response in this proceeding.
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 a complainant to prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order cancelling or transferring a domain name:
(1) the domain name registered by the respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
(2) the 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, except where differences in the two policies require a different analysis.
In view of Respondent's failure to submit a Response, pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules the Panel will decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations 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. Nevertheless, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. 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”), WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (WIPO Overview 3.0), at ¶ 4.3 (“In cases involving wholly unsupported and conclusory allegations advanced by the complainant, . . . panels may find that—despite a respondent’s default—a complainant has failed to prove its case.”).
The Panel finds as follows with respect to the matters at issue in this proceeding:
The THORNTON TOMASETTI mark was registered to Complainant with the USPTO (Reg. No. 6,280,186) on March 2, 2021 (TESS report submitted as Complaint Annex p. 1). Complainant’s registration of its mark with the USPTO establishes its rights in that mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Haas Automation, Inc. v. Jim Fraser, FA 1627211 (Forum Aug. 4, 2015) (finding that Complainant’s USPTO registrations for the HAAS mark sufficiently demonstrate its rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)).
The <thorntontomasetti.us> Domain Name is identical to the THORNTON TOMASETTI mark. It incorporates the mark exactly, merely omitting a space between the two words and adding a top-level domain. These changes do not distinguish the Domain Name from Complainant’s mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Vince Andrich v. AnonymousSpeech AnonymousSpeech, FA 1406333 (Forum Oct. 26, 2011) (finding confusing similarity per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) as “Respondent’s <vinceandrich.net> domain name is composed of Complainant’s mark, without the space between words, combined with the gTLD “.net.” These changes do not distinguish the disputed domain name from Complainant’s VINCE ANDRICH mark.”). The WIPO Overview 3.0, at ¶ 1.7, states that the test for confusing similarity ”typically involves a side-by-side comparison of the domain name and the relevant trademark to assess whether the mark is recognizable within the domain name.” Notwithstanding the changes described above, Complainant’s mark is clearly recognizable within the Domain Name.
For the reasons set forth above, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the THONRTON TOMASETTI mark, in which Complainant has substantial and demonstrated rights.
If a complainant makes a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), the burden of production shifts to respondent to come forward with evidence that it has rights or legitimate interests in it. 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”). If a respondent fails to come forward with such evidence, the complainant’s prima facie evidence will be sufficient to establish that respondent lacks such rights or legitimate interests. If the respondent does come forward with such evidence, the Panel must assess the evidence in its entirety. At all times, the burden of proof remains on the complainant. WIPO Overview 3.0, at ¶ 2.1.
Policy ¶ 4(c) lists the following four nonexclusive circumstances, any one of which if proven can demonstrate a respondent’s rights or legitimate interests in a domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii):
(i) The respondent is the owner or beneficiary of a trade or service mark that is identical to the domain name;
(ii) Before any notice to the respondent of the dispute, the respondent’s use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services;
(iii) The respondent (as an individual, business or other organization) has been commonly known by the domain name, even if the respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
(iv) The respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.
Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name because Respondent is not associated with it and Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use its mark. The Panel addresses these allegations as follows:
First, the Panel notes that Complainant does not mention or discuss any of the indicia of rights or legitimate interests listed in Policy ¶ 4(c). While the evidence of fraudulent, unlawful use of emails from an account based upon the Domain Name, discussed more fully below, certainly tends to indicate a lack of rights or legitimate interests, Complainant’s failure explicitly to address the Policy ¶ 4(c) factors raises concern about whether it has made the required prima facie case. If, for instance, Respondent were the owner or beneficiary of a trademark identical to the Domain Name, or if it were commonly known by the Domain Name, its apparently unlawful use of the Domain Name might or might not be overcome by this evidence. In any event it is incumbent upon a complainant to make out a prima facie case that the respondent does not qualify for rights or legitimate interests under any of those four factors, and this Complainant has utterly failed to address any of them.
Nevertheless, the evidence in the record does enable the Panel to make findings bearing on the Policy ¶ 4(c) factors. As to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), complainants in usTLD cases typically search one or more governmental trademark authorities and report negative results to establish a prima facie case as to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i). Complainant here offered no such evidence. Nevertheless, the evidence that is available is sufficient to establish an inference that Respondent is not the owner or beneficiary of a trade or service mark identical to the Domain Name. Complainant alleges that it was formed in 1933 and there is nothing contra in the record. There is no evidence of any legitimate use of the Thornton Tomasetti name by Respondent. This being the case, it is extremely unlikely that the USPTO or any other governmental trademark authority would have registered a trademark identical to <thorntontomasetti.us> in the name of any person other than Complainant or one of its affiliates. Further, it is highly unlikely that Respondent could have developed common law rights in the name. On this evidence, the Panel finds there is a prima facie case that Respondent is not the owner or beneficiary of a valid common law trade or service mark identical to the Domain Name.
The WHOIS information furnished to the Forum by the registrar lists “shaun peyton” as the registrant of the Domain Name. This name bears no resemblance to the Domain Name. Evidence could, of course, in a given case demonstrate that the respondent is commonly known by a domain name different from the name in which it registered the domain name, e.g., the case of a domain name incorporating the brand name of a specific product offered by and associated with the respondent. In the absence of any such evidence, however, and in cases where no response has been filed, UDRP panels have consistently held that WHOIS evidence of a registrant name which does not correspond with the domain name is sufficient to prove that the respondent is not commonly known by the domain name. Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Suzen Khan / Nancy Jain / Andrew Stanzy, FA 1741129 (Forum Aug. 16, 2017) (finding that respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names when the identifying information provided by WHOIS was unrelated to the domain names or respondent’s use of the same), Alaska Air Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines v. Song Bin, FA1408001574905 (Forum Sept. 17, 2014) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name as demonstrated by the WHOIS information and based on the fact that the complainant had not licensed or authorized the respondent to use its ALASKA AIRLINES mark). The Panel is satisfied that Respondent has not been commonly known by the Domain Name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).
Complainant states that respondent is not associated with it and that it has never authorized or permitted Respondent to use its mark. Complainant has specific competence to make this statement, and it is unchallenged by any evidence before the Panel. In the absence of evidence that a respondent is authorized to use a complainant’s mark in a domain name or that a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name, the respondent may be presumed to lack rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. IndyMac Bank F.S.B. v. Eshback, FA 830934 (Forum Dec. 7, 2006) (finding that the respondent failed to establish rights and legitimate interests in the <emitmortgage.com> domain name as the respondent was not authorized to register domain names featuring the complainant’s mark and failed to submit evidence that it is commonly known by the domain name), 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.”).
Complaint Annex p. 2 is a copy of an email from the email address accounts@thorntontomasetti.us purportedly from one Anais Torres, whom the Complaint states is one of Complainant’s accounting employees. The email is directed to one of Complainant’s customers and requests the customer to send an ACH/EFT vendors form, which indicates an intent to redirect customer payments due to Complainant to an account owned or controlled by Respondent. Respondent is using the Domain Name for an email address with which it attempts to defraud Complainant and its customers of money due from the customers to Complainant. Using a confusingly similar domain name to gain commercially through a fraudulent email scam is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services as contemplated by Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use as contemplated by Policy ¶ 4(c)(iv). Emerson Electric Co. v. golden humble / golden globals, FA 1787128 (Forum June 11, 2018) (“Passing off as a complainant through e-mails is evidence that a respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) & (iii).”), Chevron Intellectual Property LLC v. Thomas Webber / Chev Ronoil Recreational Sport Limited, FA 1661076 (Forum Mar. 15, 2016) (finding that the respondent had failed to provide a bona fide offering of goods or services or any legitimate noncommercial or fair use, stating, “Respondent is using an email address to pass themselves off as an affiliate of Complainant. Complainant presents evidence showing that the email address that Respondent has created is used to solicit information and money on false pretenses. The disputed domain name is being used to cause the recipients of these emails to mistakenly believe Respondent has a connection with Complainant and is one of the Complainant’s affiliates.”), Emerson Electric Co. v. Adilcon Rocha, FA 1735949 (Forum July 11, 2017) (finding that respondent’s attempt to pass off as complainant through emails does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services and, as such, respondent lacked rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name). [i]
The evidence in the record establishes the required prima facie case. On that evidence, and in the absence of any evidence from Respondent, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name.
Policy ¶ 4(b) sets forth a nonexclusive list of four circumstances, any one of which if proven would be evidence of bad faith use and registration of a domain name. They are as follows:
(i) circumstances indicating that the respondent has registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant which is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the respondent’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
(ii) the respondent has registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that the respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
(iii) the respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) by using the domain name, the respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the respondent’s web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the respondent’s web site or location or of a product of service on the respondent‘s web site or location.
The evidence of Respondent’s conduct discussed above in the rights or legitimate interests analysis also supports a finding of bad faith registration and use. As discussed above, Respondent registered and uses the Domain Name in connection with an email scheme designed to impersonate Complainant and fraudulently divert invoice remittances due to Complainant to a bank account not owned by Complainant. This conduct may not fall within any of the circumstances described Policy ¶ 4(b), but that paragraph acknowledges that mischief can manifest in many different forms and takes an open-ended approach to bad faith, listing some examples without attempting to enumerate all its varieties. Worldcom Exchange, Inc. v. Wei.com, Inc., WIPO Case No. D-2004-0955 (January 5, 2005). The non-exclusive nature of Policy ¶ 4(b) allows for consideration of additional factors in an analysis for bad faith, and using a confusingly similar domain name to perpetrate fraud is manifest evidence of bad faith registration and use. Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. v. Hyatt, FA1811001818756 (Forum Dec. 28, 2018) (“using a domain name to pose as a complainant to promote a fraudulent scheme has often been held to constitute bad faith”) (citations omitted); Yahoo! Inc. v. Kalra, FA1512001650447 (Forum Dec. 31, 2015) (“Respondent's registration of domain names obviously intended to create confusion with Complainant, together with its use of those domain names in connection with a fraudulent scheme involving passing itself off as Complainant and attempting to defraud Complainant's customers, is indicative of bad faith under paragraphs 4(b)(iii) and 4(b)(iv)”), MidFirst Bank v. Smith, FA0907001274302 (Forum Aug. 31, 2009) (use of the disputed domain name to pass oneself off as the Complainant constitutes bad faith registration and use of the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)).
Second, Respondent registered and is using the Domain Name, which fully incorporates the THORNTON TOMASETTI mark. As discussed above, however, Respondent has no connection with that mark or its owner, the Complainant. This also may not fit precisely within any of the circumstances set forth in Policy ¶ 4(b) but given the nonexclusive nature of Policy ¶ 4(b), the use of a domain name that is confusingly similar to a trademark with which the respondent has no connection has frequently been held to be evidence of opportunistic bad faith. Kraft Foods (Norway) v. Wide, D2000-0911 (WIPO Sept. 23, 2000) (“[T]he fact that Respondent chosen [sic] to register a well-known mark to which [it] has no connections or rights indicates that [it] was in bad faith when registering the domain name at issue.”), Google LLC v. Noboru Maruyama / Personal, FA 2001001879162 (Forum Mar. 3, 2020) (“the registration and use of domain name that is confusingly similar to a trademark with which the respondent has no connection has frequently been held to be evidence of bad faith.”).
For the reasons set forth above, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
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 <thorntontomasetti.us> Domain Name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Charles A. Kuechenmeister, Panelist
September 23, 2021
[i] The cases cited in this section were decided under the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP), which does not include usTLD Policy ¶ 4(c)(i). The usTLD Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(ii), (iii) and (iv) are identical to UDRP Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i)(ii) and (iii).
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page