Innosight Consulting, LLC v. Consulting Partners Innosight / Innosight Consulting Partners LLC
Claim Number: FA1612001708491
Complainant is Innosight Consulting, LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Amanda Schreyer of Sullivan & Worcester LLP, Massachusetts, USA. Respondent is Consulting Partners Innosight / Innosight Consulting Partners LLC (“Respondent”), Canada.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <innosightgroup.com>, registered with Eranet International Limited.
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.
Darryl C. Wilson, as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on December 19, 2016; the Forum received payment on December 19, 2016.
On December 20, 2016, Eranet International Limited confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <innosightgroup.com> domain name is registered with Eranet International Limited and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Eranet International Limited has verified that Respondent is bound by the Eranet International Limited 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 December 21, 2016, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of January 10, 2017 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@innosightgroup.com. Also on December 21, 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 January 19, 2017, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Darryl C. Wilson, 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 INNOSIGHT mark based on registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 3,492,274, registered Aug. 26, 2008). Respondent’s domain name is confusingly similar to the INNOSIGHT mark as the domain name includes the entire mark and merely differs through the addition of the term “group” and the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.”
Respondent has no legitimate rights or interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent cannot be said to be commonly known by the domain name as there is no evidence that “Innosight Consulting Partners LLC” is anything more than the name of a fictional company under which the domain name was registered. Respondent’s domain name is being used as a means to carry out an elaborate scheme to impersonate an employee of Complainant and recruit people who will presumably be financially exploited.
Respondent has registered and is using the domain name in bad faith. Respondent’s attempt to lure job seekers into a scam demonstrates an attempt to confuse and attract internet users for commercial gain. Additionally, Respondent clearly had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the INNOSIGHT mark as Respondent impersonates an employee of Complainant.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Innosight Consulting, LLC of Lexington MA, USA is the owner of domestic and international registrations for the mark INNOSIGHT. Complainant has used the mark continuously, since at least as early as 2001, in connection with its provision of goods and services in professional coaching, business consulting, and growth strategies.
Respondent is Consulting Partners Innosight / Innosight Consulting Partners LLC of Nova Scotia, Canada. Respondent’s registrar’s address is listed as Hong Kong. The Panel notes that the disputed domain name was created on or about September 13, 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 claims to have rights in the INNOSIGHT mark based on registration of the mark with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 3,492,274, registered Aug. 26, 2008). Prior panels have found that registration of a mark with the USPTO is sufficient to demonstrate a registrant’s rights in a mark. See Trip Network Inc. v. Alviera, FA 914943 (Forum Mar. 27, 2007) (determining that the complainant’s trademark registrations with the USPTO for the CHEAPTICKETS and CHEAPTICKETS.COM marks were adequate to establish its rights in the mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)). The panel here finds that Complainant has rights in the mark.
Complainant next claims that Respondent’s domain name <innosightgroup.com>
is confusingly similar to the INNOSIGHT mark. Respondent’s domain name includes the entire INNOSIGHT mark and differs from the mark through the addition of the terms, “group” and the gTLD “.com.” Past panels have found the addition of generic words and gTLDs to a mark in a domain name does not alleviate confusing similarity. See Microsoft Corporation v. Thong Tran Thanh, FA 1653187 (Forum Jan. 21, 2016) (determining that confusing similarity exist where [a disputed domain name] contains Complainant’s entire mark and differs only by the addition of a generic or descriptive phrase and top-level domain, the differences between the domain name and its contained trademark are insufficient to differentiate one from the other for the purposes of the Policy.). The Panel here finds that Respondent’s <innosightgroup.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the INNOSIGHT mark for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Respondent makes no contention with regards to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant has proven this element.
The Panel recognizes that Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 18, 2006) (holding that the complainant must first make a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under UDRP ¶ 4(a)(ii) before the burden shifts to the respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in a domain name). Complainant has met this burden.
Complainant argues that Respondent cannot be said to be commonly known by the domain name as there is no evidence that “Consulting Partners Innosight” and/or the organization “Innosight Consulting Partners LLC” is anything more than the name of a fictional company under which the domain name was registered. Prior panels have found that a respondent is not commonly known by a disputed domain name, despite WHOIS information to the contrary, where no other information supports the WHOIS information and respondent failed to submit a Response. See The Toronto-Dominion Bank v. RD BANK /-, FA1404001554468 (Forum May 13, 2014) (“WHOIS information for the <rdbank.com> domain name lists ‘RD BANK /-‘ as the domain name’s registrant. However, there is nothing in the record that corroborates the WHOIS data’s suggestion that Respondent may be commonly known by the <rdbank.com> domain name. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).”). The Panel here finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
Complainant further contends that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name is not a use in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Email addresses that are associated with Respondent’s <innosightgroup.com> appear to have been used to extend job offers to users who believe that Respondent and those using Respondent’s domain name are affiliated with Complainant. Indeed, Respondent’s website lists job openings on the disputed domain name such as “Operations Manager.” Accompanying statements for this position include;
“We sometimes have customers that owe us funds and pay us in financial instruments cashable only in the local area. Since we work all over the world, it is much easier for our customers to transfer money to our Operations Manager who are in the same area. After receiving funds Operations Manager must record information about transfer and report. Then send money to one of our branches.”
Complainant believes that this description of activities will cause users who seek this position to have their financial accounts compromised. Previous panels have found that using another’s mark to pass off as a complainant is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See Am. Int’l Group, Inc. v. Busby, FA 156251 (Forum May 30, 2003) (finding that the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith where the respondent hosted a website that “duplicated Complainant’s mark and logo, giving every appearance of being associated or affiliated with Complainant’s business . . . to perpetrate a fraud upon individual shareholders who respected the goodwill surrounding the AIG mark”). The Panel here find that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name is not a use within the parameters of Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or ¶ 4(c)(iii).
Respondent makes no contentions with regards to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Because the Respondent has not provided a response to this action, the Respondent has failed to meet its burden regarding proof of any rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain.
Complainant has proven this element.
Complainant claims that Respondent’s attempt to lure job seekers into a scam demonstrates an attempt to confuse and attract internet users for commercial gain. As previously noted, Respondent’s domain resolves to a website displaying a job posting that appeared to be used to perpetrate fraud on users who inquired about the position. Prior panels have held that using a confusingly similar domain name to resolve to a fraudulent website has demonstrated bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See H-D Michigan, Inc. v. Petersons Auto., FA 135608 (Forum Jan. 8, 2003) (finding that the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) through the respondent’s registration and use of the infringing domain name to intentionally attempt to attract Internet users to its fraudulent website by using the complainant’s famous marks and likeness). The Panel here finds that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
Respondent makes no contentions with regards to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Complainant has proven this element.
Because the Complainant has established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that Complainant’s requested relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <innosightgroup.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Darryl C. Wilson, Panelist
Dated: February 2, 2017
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page