IDEO LP v. Remy Dorinville
Claim Number: FA1801001769173
Complainant is IDEO LP (“Complainant”), represented by Nate Garhart of Cobalt LLP, California, USA. Respondent is Remy Dorinville (“Respondent”), Florida, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <ldeos.com>, registered with 1&1 Internet SE.
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.
Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on January 26, 2018; the Forum received payment on January 26, 2018.
On January 30, 2018, 1&1 Internet SE confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <ldeos.com> domain name is registered with 1&1 Internet SE and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. 1&1 Internet SE has verified that Respondent is bound by the 1&1 Internet SE 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 February 1, 2018, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 21, 2018 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@ldeos.com. Also on February 1, 2018, 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 February 26, 2018, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Paul M. DeCicco 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 contends as follows:
Complainant operates an international design and consulting firm that designs products, services, environments, and digital experiences.
Complainant has rights in the IDEO mark through trademark registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 2,329,001, registered Mar. 14, 2000).
Respondent’s <ldeos.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s IDEO mark because Respondent replaces the letter “i” with “l” and adds the letter “s” as well as a “.com” generic top level domain (“gTLD”) to Complainant’s mark.
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <ldeos.com> domain name because Respondent is not licensed to use Complainant’s mark and Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Additionally, Respondent is passing off as Complainant for a phishing scheme using the disputed domain name. This does constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.
Furthermore, Respondent attempts to pass off as Complainant through email phishing to confuse consumers that Respondent is affiliated with Complainant indicates bad faith registration and use.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant has rights in the IDEO mark through its registration of such mark with the USPTO.
Complainant’s rights in the IDEO mark existed prior to Respondent’s registration of the at-issue domain name.
Respondent uses the disputed domain name in an attempt to pass itself off as Complainant in furtherance of an email based phishing scheme.
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 at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.
Complainant’s ownership of a USPTO registration for IDEO is sufficient to demonstrate its rights in a mark for the purposes of 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. . . . Due to Complainant’s attached USPTO registration on the principal register …, the Panel agrees that it has sufficiently demonstrated its rights per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”).
Respondent’s <ldeos.com> domain name contains a misspelling of Complainant’s IDEO trademark, substituting a lowercase “L” for the mark’s visually similar “I” and adding the letter “S” to the mark, all followed by the top level domain name “.com”. The differences between the at-issue domain name and Complainant’s trademark are insufficient to distinguish one from the other for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Therefore the Panel concludes that Respondent’s <ldeos.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s IDEO trademark. See Intelius, Inc. v. Hyn, FA 703175 (Forum July 5, 2006) (finding the <intellus.com> domain name to be confusingly similar to the complainant’s INTELIUS mark because the domain name differed from the mark by one letter and was visually similar); see also, Acme Lift Company, L.L.C. v. VistaPrint Technologies Ltd, FA 1607039 (Forum Apr. 11, 2015) (stating, “Where a respondent has created a domain name in an effort to visually deceive Internet users via a simple misspelling (and when such misspellings are visually similar to the mark), a finding of confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) is appropriate.”); see also Dell Inc. v. Protection of Private Person / Privacy Protection, FA 1681432 (Forum Aug. 1, 2016) (“A TLD (whether a gTLD, sTLD or ccTLD) is disregarded under a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis because domain name syntax requires TLDs.”).
Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006). Since Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant’s trademark in any capacity and as discussed below there is no evidence supporting a finding pursuant to Policy 4(c) that Respondent has rights or interests in the at-issue domain name, Complainant’s prima facie showing acts conclusively.
WHOIS information for the at-issue domain name identifies the domain name’s registrant as “Remy Dorinville.” Notably, the record before the Panel contains no evidence that might otherwise tend to prove that Respondent is commonly known by the <ldeos.com> domain name. The Panel therefore concludes that for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name. See Navistar International Corporation v. N Rahmany, FA1505001620789 (Forum June 8, 2015) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name where the complainant had never authorized the respondent to incorporate its NAVISTAR mark in any domain name registration); see also, Coppertown Drive-Thru Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089 (Forum July 17, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <coppertown.com> domain name where there was no evidence in the record, including the WHOIS information, suggesting that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name).
Additionally, Respondent uses the <ldeos.com> domain name to attempt to pass itself off as Complainant in furtherance of a phishing scheme. Using the at-issue domain name in this manner is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See DaVita Inc. v. Cynthia Rochelo, FA 1738034 (Forum July 20, 2017) (”Passing off in furtherance of a phishing scheme is not considered a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use.”); see also Allianz of Am. Corp. v. Bond, FA 690796 (Forum June 12, 2006) (holding that the respondent’s use of the <allianzcorp.biz> domain name to fraudulently acquire the personal and financial information of Internet users seeking Complainant’s financial services was not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)).
Given the foregoing, Complainant satisfies its initial burden and conclusively demonstrates Respondent’s lack of rights and lack of interests in respect of the at-issue domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Respondent’s <ldeos.com> domain name was registered and used in bad faith. As discussed below without limitation, Policy ¶4(b) specific bad faith circumstances, as well as other circumstance, are present and compel the Panel to conclude that Respondent acted in bad faith pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
As mentioned above regarding rights and legitimate interests, Respondent uses its confusingly similar <ldeos.com> domain name to pass itself off as Complainant. Respondent, using email originating from <ldeos.com>, poses as Complainant to trick email recipients into believing Respondent’s communication is from Complainant, when it is not. Respondent sends such email to Complainant’s business partners asking them for private financial information and/or for a direct payment. Respondent’s attempt to pass itself off as Complainant and then defraud third parties demonstrates bad faith registration and use of the at-issue domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Zoetis Inc. and Zoetis Services LLC v. VistaPrint Technologies Ltd, FA1506001623601 (Forum July 14, 2015) (“Respondent’s attempt to use the <zoietis.com> domain name to phish for personal information in fraudulent emails also constitutes bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”); see also, Wells Fargo & Co. v. Maniac State, FA 608239 (Forum Jan. 19, 2006) (finding bad faith registration and use where the respondent was using the <wellsbankupdate.com> domain name in order to fraudulently acquire the personal and financial information of the complainant’s customers).
Next and although not expressly argued by Complainant, Respondent’s intentional misspelling of Complainant’s trademark in Respondent’s at-issue confusingly similar domain name shows that Respondent is typosquatting. Typosquatting is a practice whereby a domain name registrant deliberately introduces typographical errors or misspellings into a trademark and then uses the resulting string in a domain name hoping that internet users will either inadvertently type the malformed string when searching for products or services associated with the target trademark, or will confuse the domain name with its target trademark when viewing the domain name. Here, Respondent modifies Complainant’s trademark by replacing its “I” with a look-a-like lower case “L” (or “l”) and adding an “S”. Typosquatting, in itself, indicates bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Computerized Sec. Sys., Inc. v. Hu, FA 157321 (Forum June 23, 2003) (finding that the respondent engaged in typosquatting, which is evidence of bad faith registration and use under 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 <ldeos.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist
Dated: February 27, 2018
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page