DECISION

 

Lionbridge Technologies, Inc. v. luna morgan

Claim Number: FA1810001810668

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Lionbridge Technologies, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Lawrence R. Robins of FisherBroyles LLP, Massachusetts, USA. Respondent is luna morgan ("Respondent"), Nigeria.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <lionbridge-ca.com>, registered with NameCheap, Inc.

 

PANEL

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.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on October 6, 2018; the Forum received payment on October 6, 2018.

 

On October 8, 2018, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by email to the Forum that the <lionbridge-ca.com> domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameCheap, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameCheap, Inc. 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 11, 2018, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of October 31, 2018 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via email to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@lionbridge-ca.com. Also on October 11, 2018, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the email 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 2, 2018, 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.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant provides translation and localization services and software, along with an online marketplace for freelance translators. Complainant has locations in 27 countries and claims to be the world's largest professional translation and localization company, with annual revenues of approximately US $500 million, and approximately 500,000 employees and paid freelance consultants. Complainant has used the LIONBRIDGE mark in connection with this business since 1996, and owns registrations for the mark in the United States and other jurisdictions.

 

Respondent registered the disputed domain name <lionbridge-ca.com> in August 2018. Shortly thereafter, employees and freelance contractors of Complainant began receiving unsolicited employment recruitment messages incorporating the disputed domain name in an apparent attempt to impersonate Complainant and referring them to a website at <lionbridge-ca.com>. That website mimics Complainant's site, using Complainant's LIONBRIDGE mark and containing content copied from Complainant's site. Complainant alleges that Respondent is using the disputed domain name in connection with a fraudulent phishing scheme intended to obtain personal and financial information from Complainant's employees and contractors. Complainant states further that it has not authorized, licensed, or otherwise permitted Respondent to use its mark or any variation thereof.

 

Complainant contends on the above grounds that the disputed domain name <lionbridge-ca.com> is confusingly similar to its LIONBRIDGE mark; that Respondent lacks 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.

 

FINDINGS

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.

 

DISCUSSION

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 Management, 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.").

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

The disputed domain name <lionbridge-ca.com> incorporates Complainant's registered LIONBRIDGE trademark, with the addition of a hyphen, the geographic abbreviation "ca," and the ".com" top-level domain. These additions do not substantially diminish the similarity between the domain name and Complainant's mark. See, e.g., Lionbridge Technologies, Inc. v. luna morgan, FA 1803760 (Forum Sept. 21, 2018) (finding <lionbridges.net> confusingly similar to LIONBRIDGE); Valero Energy Corp.; Valero Marketing & Supply Co. v. Domains By Proxy LLC / Valero Valero, D2018-1711 (WIPO Sept. 19, 2018) (finding <valero‑ca.com> confusingly similar to VALERO); Toronto-Dominion Bank v. Nathan Haules / Muia, FA 1710116 (Forum Feb. 2, 2017) (finding <tdbank‑ca.com> confusingly similar to TD BANK). Accordingly, the Panel considers the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to Complainant's registered mark.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

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 Productions, Inc. v. Entertainment Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006).

 

The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's registered mark without authorization, and it is being used in connection with a fraudulent phishing scheme. Such use clearly does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests under the Policy. See, e.g., Lionbridge Technologies, Inc. v. luna morgan, FA 1803760, supra (finding lack of rights or legitimate interests under similar circumstances).

 

Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name, 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 the disputed domain name.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Finally, Complainant must show that the disputed domain name was registered and is being 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."

 

For the same reasons as in Lionbridge Technologies, Inc. v. luna morgan, FA 1803760, supra, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.

 

DECISION

Having considered the three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <lionbridge-ca.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

David E. Sorkin, Panelist

Dated: November 5, 2018

 

 

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page