Stantec Consulting Ltd. v. Christian A Styles / Private Person
Claim Number: FA1510001643321
Complainant is Stantec Consulting Ltd. (“Complainant”), represented by Anna Loparco of Dentons Canada LLP, Canada. Respondent is Christian A Styles / Private Person (“Respondent”), Canada.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <stantecgroup.com>, registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com.
The undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his or her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Kenneth L. Port as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on October 21, 2015; the Forum received payment on October 21, 2015.
On October 22, 2015, PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <stantecgroup.com> domain name is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com 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 October 23, 2015, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of November 12, 2015 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@stantecgroup.com. Also on October 23, 2015, 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 November 17, 2015, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Kenneth L. Port 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 has rights in the STANTEC mark through its registration with the Canadian Intellectual Property Office (“CIPO”) (e.g., Reg. No. TMA537134, registered on November 16, 2000). Respondent’s <stantecgroup.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the STANTEC mark because it contains the entire mark, with only the additions of the generic term “group” and the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.”
Respondent is not commonly known by the <stantecgroup.com> domain name because Complainant has not authorized it to use the STANTEC mark. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Exhibits C-1 and C-2 for screenshots of the disputed domain, which indicate that the site is blocked.
Respondent uses the <stantecgroup.com> domain name in bad faith because it was used in an attempt to pass off as being operated by Complainant. Respondent registered the <stantecgroup.com> domain name in bad faith because it did so with actual or constructive knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the STANTEC mark.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. The <stantecgroup.com> domain name was created on December 10, 2014.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar with the Complainant’s registered trademark, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in or to the disputed domain name, and that the Respondent engaged in bad faith use and registration of the disputed domain name.
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(e), 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 and inferences set forth in the Complaint as true unless the evidence is clearly contradictory. See Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 31, 2000) (holding that the respondent’s failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of the complaint to be deemed true); see also Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009 (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000) (“In the absence of a response, it is appropriate to accept as true all allegations of the Complaint.”).
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademark. The Complainant has shown adequate support for its claim to have rights in and to the trademark SANTEC. The Respondent arrived at the disputed domain name by merely adding the word “group” and the gTLD to the trademark. As such, the Panel finds the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar with the Complainant’s registered trademark.
There is no evidence in the record that indicates the Respondent was ever commonly known by the disputed domain name. Complainant does not make any specific contentions with respect to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). However, Complainant’s argument for bad faith use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii), attempting to pass itself off as Complainant, is also demonstrative of showing a lack of 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 has provided in Exhibit D, the website to which the <stantecgroup.com> domain name currently resolves, as well as, in Exhibit E, evidence that it has previously been used to host job positions as if it were operated by Complainant.
As such, the Panel finds that Respondent lacks any rights or legitimate interests in or to the disputed domain name.
While Complainant does not make any contentions that fall within the articulated provisions of Policy ¶ 4(b), these provisions are meant to be merely illustrative of bad faith. The Respondent’s bad faith may be demonstrated by ancillary allegations considered under the totality of the circumstances. See Digi Int’l Inc. v. DDI Sys., FA 124506 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 24, 2002) (determining that Policy ¶ 4(b) sets forth certain circumstances, without limitation, that shall be evidence of registration and use of a domain name in bad faith).
Complainant alleges that Respondent uses the <stantecgroup.com> domain name in bad faith because it was used in an attempt to pass off as being operated by Complainant. Complainant has provided in Exhibit D, the website to which the <stantecgroup.com> domain name currently resolves, as well as, in Exhibit E, evidence that it has previously been used to host job positions as if it were operated by Complainant. Past panels have found similar use to constitute bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Smiths Group plc v. Snooks, FA 1372112 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 18, 2011) (finding that the respondent’s attempt to impersonate an employee of the complainant was evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)); see also Capital One Fin. Corp. & Capital One Bank v. Howel, FA 289304 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 11, 2004) (“The <capitalonebank.biz> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark, it is being used to redirect Internet users to a website that imitates Complainant’s credit application website, and it is being used to fraudently [sic] acquire personal information from Complainant’s clients. Respondent’s use of the domain name supports findings of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”).
The Panel finds that Complainant’s evidence is sufficient to show Respondent attempted to pass itself off as Complainant. As such, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the <stantecgroup.com> domain in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Complainant alleges that Respondent registered the <stantecgroup.com> domain name in bad faith because it did so with actual or constructive knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the STANTEC mark. Given the totality of the circumstances, the Panel finds that the Respondent had actual knowledge of the Complainant’s trademark and its rights therein. As such, the Panel finds that the Respondent has engaged in bad faith use and registration of the disputed domain name.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be granted.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <stantecgroup.com> domain name transferred from the Respondent to the Complainant.
Kenneth L. Port, Panelist
Dated: November 18, 2015
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page