Robert Half International Inc. v. One Web
Claim Number: FA2207002005407
Complainant is Robert Half International Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Daniel Bernard of Foley & Lardner LLP, New York, USA. Respondent is One Web (“Respondent”), India.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <roberthalfasia.com>, (‘the Domain Name’) registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.
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.
Dawn Osborne as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on July 22, 2022; the Forum received payment on July 22, 2022.
On July 25, 2022, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <roberthalfasia.com> Domain Name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, LLC 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 July 26, 2022, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 15, 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@roberthalfasia.com. Also on July 26, 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 August 16, 2022 pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Dawn Osborne 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
The Complainant’s submissions can be summarized as follows:
The Complainant is the owner of the trade mark ROBERT HALF registered in the United States for employment agency services with first use recorded as 1948.
The Domain Name registered in 2022 is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark adding the generic term ‘Asia’ and the gTLD ‘.com’ which do not prevent said confusing similarity.
The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name is not commonly known by it and is not authorized by the Complainant.
The Domain Name has been used to point to a site offering competing employment agency services using the Complainant’s mark and a logo very similar to that of the Complainant as a masthead and is currently being used for third party commercial pay per click links. These uses are not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate non commercial fair use. They show registration and use in bad faith and cause confusion for commercial gain and disrupt the Complainant’s business.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
The Complainant is the owner of the trade mark ROBERT HALF registered in the United States for employment agency services with first use recorded as 1948.
The Domain Name registered in 2022 has been used for a site offering competing employment agency services under the Complainant’s mark and a similar logo to that of the Complainant as a masthead and is currently being used for commercial 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 Domain Name consists of the Complainant's ROBERT HALF mark (which is registered, inter alia, in the USA for employment agency services with first use recorded as 1948), the generic term ‘Asia’ and a gTLD ‘.com’.
Previous panels have found confusing similarity when a respondent merely adds a generic term to a Complainant's mark including geographical terms. See PG&E Corp. v. Anderson, D2000-1264 (WIPO Nov. 22, 2000) (finding that respondent does not by adding common descriptive or generic terms create new or different marks nor does it alter the underlying mark held by the Complainant). The addition of the generic term ‘Asia’ does not prevent confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the Complainant’s mark.
A gTLD does not serve to distinguish a domain name from a Complainant’s mark. See Red Hat Inc. v. Haecke, FA 726010 (Forum July 24, 2006) (concluding that the redhat.org domain name is identical to the complainant's red hat mark because the mere addition of the gTLD was insufficient to differentiate the disputed domain name from the mark). The panel holds that the addition of the gTLD ‘.com’ does not prevent confusing similarity between the Complainant’s mark and the Domain Name.
Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered mark.
As such the Panel holds that Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been satisfied.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant has not authorized the use of its mark. There is no evidence or reason to suggest the Respondent is, in fact, commonly known by the Domain Name. See 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 use is commercial, so is not legitimate non commercial fair use.
The web site attached to the Domain Name used the Complainant's mark and a similar logo to the Complainant’s logo as a masthead to offer competing employment agency services. It did not make it clear that there was no commercial connection with the Complainant and the web site appeared official. The Panel finds this use was deceptive and confusing. As such it cannot have amounted to the bona fide offering of goods and services. See Am. Intl Group Inc. v. Benjamin, FA 944242 (Forum May 11, 2007) (finding that the Respondent's use of a confusingly similar domain name to compete with the Complainant's business did not constitute a bona fide use of goods and services.).
The Respondent is currently using the Domain Name for links offering goods and/or services not connected with the Complainant which is not a bona fide offering of services in these circumstances. See Ferring B.V. v. Shanshan Huang / Melissa Domain Name Services, FA1505001620342 (Forum July 1, 2015) (“Placing unrelated third party links for the benefit of a respondent indicates a lack of a bona fide offering of goods or services, and a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii), respectively.”).
The Respondent has not answered this Complaint or offered any explanation.
As such the Panelist finds that the Respondent does not have rights or a legitimate interest in the Domain Name and that the Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
In the opinion of the panelist the use made of the Domain Name in relation to the Respondent’s site was confusing and disruptive in that visitors to the site might reasonably have believed that it was connected to or approved by the Complainant as it used the Complainant’s mark and a very similar logo to that of the Complainant as a masthead giving the impression that the site attached to the Domain Name was an official site of the Complainant. The use of the Complainant’s logo on the site attached to the Domain Name showed that the Respondent is aware of the Complainant its rights, business and products.
Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trade mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the web site or services on it likely to disrupt the business of the Complainant. See Asbury Auto Group Inc. v. Tex. Int'l Prop Assocs, FA 958542 (Forum May 29, 2007) (finding that the respondent's use of the disputed domain name to compete with the complainant's business would likely lead to confusion amongst Internet users as to the sponsorship or affiliation of a competing business and was therefore evidence of bad faith and use).
Use for third party commercial pay per click links also indicates bad faith being disruptive of the Complainant’s business and diverting customers for commercial gain and can indicate actual knowledge of the Complainant and its business. See Plain Green, LLC v. wenqiang tang, FA1505001621656 (Forum July 1, 2015) (finding that the respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to feature generic third-party hyperlinks constituted bad faith).
As such, the Panelist believes that the Complainant has made out its case that the Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith and has satisfied the third limb of the Policy under 4(b)(iii) and 4(b)(iv).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <roberthalfasia.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Dawn Osborne, Panelist
Dated: August 17, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page