Huron Consulting Group Inc. v. rosa bocanegra
Claim Number: FA1606001678451
Complainant is Huron Consulting Group Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Genevieve E. Charlton of Barnes & Thornburg LLP, Illinois, United States. Respondent is rosa bocanegra (“Respondent”), California, United States
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <huroncconsultinggroup.com>, registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com.
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.
David A. Einhorn appointed as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on June 7, 2016; the Forum received payment on June 8, 2016.
On June 9, 2016, PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <huroncconsultinggroup.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 June 9, 2016, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of June 29, 2016 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@huroncconsultinggroup.com. Also on June 9, 2016, 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 July 5, 2016, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed David A. Einhorn 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 uses the HURON CONSULTING GROUP mark in connection with its business of providing consultation services to a wide variety of clients. Complainant has registered the HURON CONSULTING GROUP mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 3,568,857, registered Feb. 3, 2009; Reg. No. 4,903,900, registered Feb. 23, 2016), which establishes rights in the mark. Respondent’s <huroncconsultinggroup.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the HURON CONSULTING GROUP mark as it is merely a typosquatting variation of the mark because it misspells “consulting” by adding an extra “c”.
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <huroncconsultinggroup.com> domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor affiliated with Complainant in any way. Further, Respondent is making 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) through the <huroncconsultinggroup.com> domain name. Rather, the domain name resolves to an inactive website stating, “This site can’t be reached.”
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. The Panel notes that the <huroncconsultinggroup.com> domain name was registered March 31, 2016.
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 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 (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.”).
Complainant uses the HURON CONSULTING GROUP mark in connection with its business of providing consultation services to a wide variety of clients. Complainant purports it has registered the HURON CONSULTING GROUP mark with the USPTO (Reg. No. 3,568,857, registered Feb. 3, 2009; Reg. No. 4,903,900, registered Feb. 23, 2016), and argues that its demonstration of trademark registrations is sufficient in establishing Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) rights in the HURON CONSULTING GROUP mark. Panels have found that a complainant’s valid USPTO registration is sufficient in establishing rights in a mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Humor Rainbow, Inc. v. James Lee, FA 1626154 (Forum Aug. 11, 2015) (stating, “There exists an overwhelming consensus amongst UDRP panels that USPTO registrations are sufficient in demonstrating a complainant’s rights under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) and its vested interests in a mark”.) Therefore, this Panel finds that Complainant has established Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) rights in the HURON CONSULTING GROUP mark.
Next, Complainant argues that Respondent’s <huroncconsultinggroup.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the HURON CONSULTING GROUP mark as it is merely a typosquatting variation of the mark. Panels have found such alterations to a mark are insufficient in overcoming a finding of confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Internet Movie Database, Inc. v. Temme, FA 449837 (Forum May 24, 2005) (holding that the respondent’s disputed domain names were confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark because the disputed domain names were common misspellings of the mark involving keys that were adjacent to the current keys comprising the complainant’s mark). Therefore, this Panel agrees that Respondent’s <huroncconsultinggroup.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the HURON CONSULTING GROUP mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant argues that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <huroncconsultinggroup.com> domain name. To begin, complainant argues that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. The Panel notes that the WHOIS information regarding the disputed domain name lists “rosa bocangera” as registrant of record. The Panel also notes that Respondent has failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. Therefore, in light of the available evidence, this Panel agrees that there is no basis to find Respondent commonly known by the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Alaska Air Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines v. Song Bin, FA 1574905 (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).
Further, Complainant argues that Respondent is making neither a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use through the <huroncconsultinggroup.com> domain name. Rather, Complainant contends that the domain name resolves to an inactive website stating “This site can’t be reached.” Panels have found such inactive use by a respondent consists of neither a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Shemesh, FA 434145 (Forum Apr. 20, 2005) (“The Panel finds that the [failure to make an active use] of a domain name that is identical to Complainant’s mark is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and it is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”). Therefore, this Panel agrees that Respondent’s <huroncconsultinggroup.com> domain name constitutes neither a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii).
Thus, Complainant has also satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Complainant contends that Respondent has engaged in typosquatting. Panels have found bad faith registration and use when a respondent has engaged in typosquatting. See Homer TLC, Inc. v. Artem Ponomarev, FA 1623825 (Forum July 20, 2015) (It is evident that the <homededpot.com> domain name is an instance of typosquatting, which is the deliberate misspelling of the mark of another in a domain name, done to take advantage of common typing errors made by Internet users in entering into a web browser the name of an enterprise with which they would like to do business online. Typosquatting is independent evidence of bad faith in the registration and use of a domain name.”). This Panel agrees that Respondent has engaged in typosquatting and finds that Respondent’s registration and use of the <huroncconsultinggroup.com> domain name falls within the purview of Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Thus, Complainant has also satisfied 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 <huroncconsultinggroup.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
David A. Einhorn, Panelist
Dated: July 19, 2016
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page