Robert Half International Inc. v. tim neal
Claim Number: FA2204001991579
Complainant is Robert Half International Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Robert Weisbein of Foley & Lardner LLP, Illinois, USA. Respondent is tim neal (“Respondent”), California, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <roberthalfnational.com> (the “disputed domain name”), registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).
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.
Lynda M. Braun as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on April 8, 2022; the Forum received payment on April 8, 2022.
On April 8, 2022, the Registrar confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <roberthalfnational.com> disputed domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. The Registrar has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, 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 April 12, 2022, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of May 2, 2022 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@roberthalfnational.com. Also on April 12, 2022, 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 9, 2022, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Lynda M. Braun 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 disputed domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant is one of the world’s largest specialized employment staffing agencies, providing its clients with skilled professionals in the fields of accounting and finance, technology, legal, creative, marketing, and administration since its founding in 1948. Complainant has more than 400 consulting and staffing locations worldwide and employs over 10,000 employees.
Complainant claims rights in the ROBERT HALF trademark based upon its registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., United States Registration No. 1,156,612, registered on June 2, 1981). Complainant has also obtained numerous trademark registrations for its marks incorporating ROBERT HALF, RHI, and RH in other jurisdictions worldwide. The aforementioned trademarks will hereinafter collectively be referred to as the “ROBERT HALF Mark”.
Complainant claims that the <roberthalfnational.com> disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ROBERT HALF Mark because Respondent has incorporated the entire mark and added the descriptive word “national” and the “.com” generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”). Complainant also contends that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
The Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the ROBERT HALF Mark based on its trademark registrations with the USPTO and in other jurisdictions worldwide. Registration with the USPTO and other trademark offices worldwide is sufficient to establish rights in a mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). In addition, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ROBERT HALF Mark, that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and that Respondent registered and is using the disputed 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 disputed domain name should be cancelled or transferred:
(1) the disputed 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 disputed domain name; and
(3) the disputed 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 the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the ROBERT HALF Mark as set forth below.
The Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the ROBERT HALF Mark based on registration with the USPTO and other trademark offices worldwide. Registration of a mark with multiple trademark authorities is sufficient to establish rights under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Google LLC v. Bhawana Chandel / Admission Virus, FA 1799694 (Forum Sept. 4, 2018) (“Complainant has rights in the GMAIL mark based upon its registration of the mark”). Here, since Complainant provides evidence of its registration with the USPTO and other foreign trademark offices for the ROBERT HALF Mark, the Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the ROBERT HALF Mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
The Panel also finds that Respondent’s disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ROBERT HALF Mark as Respondent merely adds the descriptive term “national”, followed by the “.com” generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”). Adding a descriptive term and a gTLD to a complainant’s mark does not distinguish a disputed domain name from the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See The Toronto-Dominion Bank v. George Whitehead, FA 1784412 (Forum June 11, 2018) (“[S]light differences between domain names and registered marks, such as the addition of words that describe the goods or services in connection with the mark and gTLDs, do not distinguish the domain name from the mark incorporated therein per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”).
Accordingly, the Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been established by Complainant.
The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Under the Policy, Complainant is required to make out a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Once such a prima facie case is made, Respondent carries the burden of demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. See 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”).
In this case, Respondent did not carry its burden to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name as it did not submit a response to the Complaint, but given the facts of this case, the Panel finds that Respondent would have been hard pressed to furnish availing arguments had it chosen to respond.
In support, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name or any name similar to it, nor has Complainant authorized or licensed Respondent to use its ROBERT HALF Mark in the disputed domain name.
In addition, Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services, nor any legitimate noncommercial or fair use because the resolving website presents users with third party sponsored pay-per-click links that list several parties that offer services similar to those of Complainant. Using a disputed domain name to resolve to a page with pay-per-click competing links does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods and services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii). See The Toronto-Dominion Bank v. GEORGE WASHERE, FA 1785311 (Forum June 7, 2018) (“Respondent’s confusingly similar <esecuretdbank.com> domain name references a website displaying links to competing third parties as well as links to Complainant and various unrelated third parties. Using the domain name in this manner shows neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”); see also Ashley Furniture Industries, Inc. v. domain admin / private registrations aktien gesellschaft, FA1506001626253 (Forum July 29, 2015) (“Respondent is using the disputed domain name to resolve to a web page containing advertising links to products that compete with those of Complainant. The Panel finds that this does not constitute a bona fide offering or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.”).
Here, Complainant provides a screenshot of the resolving parked webpage which features hyperlinks, some of which relate to Complainant’s business (i.e., links such as “Robert Half Staffing” or similar staffing services).
Accordingly, the Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been established by Complainant.
The Panel concludes that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
First, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith as it resolves to a parked webpage that offers pay-per-click hyperlinks. Use of a disputed domain name to resolve to a parked webpage with various sponsored hyperlinks, including those that compete with a complainant’s business may be evidence of bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See American Council on Education and GED Testing Service LLC v. Anthony Williams, FA1760954 (Forum Jan. 8, 2018) (“Respondent’s hosting of links to Complainant’s competitors demonstrates bad faith registration and use of the <geddiploma.org> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)”). Here, Complainant has provided the Panel with a screenshot of Respondent’s disputed domain name’s resolving webpage that shows links to Complainant’s own business as well as to services that compete with Complainant.
Second, the fame of the ROBERT HALF Mark, which was used and registered by Complainant far in advance of Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name, renders it wholly implausible that Respondent created the disputed domain name independently. Moreover, where a disputed domain name is so obviously connected with a well-known name, product or service, its use by someone with no connection to the name, product or service indicates opportunistic bad faith. Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the ROBERT HALF Mark, and this constitutes bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). It therefore strains credulity to believe that Respondent had not known of the Complainant or its ROBERT HALF Mark when registering the disputed domain name. Thus, as here, prior knowledge of a complainant’s trademarks before registering a confusingly similar domain name is sufficient to find bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Orbitz Worldwide, LLC v. Domain Librarian, FA 1535826 (Forum Feb. 6, 2014) (finding actual knowledge due to the domain name chosen and the use made of it).
Accordingly, the Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been established by 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 <roberthalfnational.com> disputed domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Lynda M. Braun, Panelist
Dated: May 16, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page