Cognizant Technology Solutions U.S. Corporation v. Domain Admin / Whois Privacy Corp.
Claim Number: FA1708001745174
Complainant is Cognizant Technology Solutions U.S. Corporation ("Complainant"), represented by David M. Kramer of DLA Piper LLP (US), District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is Domain Admin / Whois Privacy Corp. ("Respondent"), Bahamas.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <onecognizant.com>, registered with Internet Domain Service BS Corp.
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 E. Sorkin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on August 17, 2017; the Forum received payment on August 17, 2017.
On August 21, 2017, Internet Domain Service BS Corp confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <onecognizant.com> domain name is registered with Internet Domain Service BS Corp and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Internet Domain Service BS Corp has verified that Respondent is bound by the Internet Domain Service BS Corp 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 August 25, 2017, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 14, 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@onecognizant.com. Also on August 25, 2017, 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 September 20, 2017, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed David E. Sorkin 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 describes itself as a global leader in business and technology consulting services. Complainant has over 50 delivery centers worldwide, approximately 171,000 employees, and net revenue of over $13.4 billion. Complainant has used COGNIZANT and related marks in connection with its business since 1994. The COGNIZANT mark is registered in the United States and many other jurisdictions, and Complainant asserts that it has become famous as a result of years of use and promotion.
The disputed domain name <onecognizant.com> is registered to Respondent, a domain name registration privacy service located in the Bahamas. Complainant states that the disputed domain name resolves to various websites depending upon the web browser used and the time it is accessed. As of August 2017, the domain name resolved to a web page bearing links to competitors of Complainant. On other occasions, the domain name has resolved to a rotating set of scam websites promoting fraudulent "tech support" services. Complainant notes that it uses a subdomain similar to the disputed domain name, <onecognizant.cognizant.com>, for its own customer login portal, and alleges that the disputed domain name was intentionally selected to misdirect customers seeking Complainant's portal.
Complainant contends on the above grounds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights; that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used 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 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.").
The disputed domain name <onecognizant.com> combines Complainant's COGNIZANT mark with the generic term "one" and the ".com" top-level domain name. These additions do not substantially diminish the similarity between the domain name and Complainant's mark. See, e.g., Distinct Holdings, Inc., d/b/a Diversified v. Robert Schweitzer, FA 1737080 (Forum July 27, 2017) (finding <onediversified.com> confusingly similar to DIVERSIFIED); Cognizant Technology Solutions U.S. Corp. v. Jonathan Chadwick / cognizanttech, FA 1713983 (Forum Mar. 1, 2017) (finding <cognizanttech.org> confusingly similar to COGNIZANT). The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights.
Under the Policy, the complainant must first make a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and then the burden shifts to the respondent to come forward with concrete evidence of such rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm't Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006).
The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's mark without authorization, and its only apparent uses have been to display pay-per-click links to competing services and to promote fraudulent websites—neither of which would give rise to rights or legitimate interests. Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain names, and Respondent has failed to come forward with any evidence of such rights or interests. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has sustained its burden of proving that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of each of the disputed domain names.
Finally, Complainant must show that the disputed domain names were registered and have been used in bad faith. Under paragraph 4(b)(iii) of the Policy,
bad faith may be shown by evidence that Respondent registered the disputed domain name "primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor." Under paragraph 4(b)(iv), bad faith may be shown by evidence that "by using the domain name, [Respondent] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [Respondent's] web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [Respondent's] web site or location or of a product or service on [Respondent's] web site or location."
Respondent's registration of a domain name that incorporates Complainant's well-known marks (and that mimics Complainant's <onecognizant.cognizant.com> subdomain), together with the use of the domain name to generate revenues from pay-per-click advertisements and scam "tech support" websites, is indicative of bad faith under paragraphs 4(b)(iii) and 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. See, e.g., ADP, LLC v. Zhichao Yang, FA 1744546 (Forum Sept. 12, 2017); Oceaneering International, Inc. v. Lisa Katz / Domain Protection LLC, FA 1620300 (Forum Aug. 7, 2015). The Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
Having considered the three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <onecognizant.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
David E. Sorkin, Panelist
Dated: September 25, 2017
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page