The Prudential Insurance Company of America v. Christoph Sigrist / Jameson Services Consulting
Claim Number: FA1901001823381
Complainant is The Prudential Insurance Company of America (“Complainant”), represented by Danae T. Robinson of Pirkey Barber PLLC, Texas, USA. Respondent is Christoph Sigrist / Jameson Services Consulting (“Respondent”), Hong Kong.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <prudentialag.com>, registered with NameCheap, Inc.
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.
Richard Hill as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on January 2, 2019; the Forum received payment on January 2, 2019.
On January 2, 2018, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <prudentialag.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 January 4, 2019, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of January 24, 2019 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@prudentialag.com. Also on January 4, 2019, 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 27, 2019, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Richard Hill 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 states that is one of the world’s leading financial services companies, offering a wide range of financial, retirement planning, and insurance services, among others. It has operations in the United States, Asia, Europe and Latin America. Complainant has rights in the PRUDENTIAL mark through its trademark registration in the United States in 1960.
Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its mark because the domain name includes the PRUDENTIAL mark in its entirety, tacks on the letters “AG,” and adds a “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).
According to Complainant, Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name because Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and is not authorized or permitted to use Complainant’s mark in any fashion. Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, Respondent uses an e-mail address associated with the disputed domain name to offer fraudulent securities.
Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent attempts to attract, for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion as to the source, sponsorship, endorsement, or affiliation of Respondent’s website. Specifically, Respondent uses an e-mail address associated with the disputed domain name to pass of as Complainant and offer fraudulent goods or services. Further, due to the fame and Respondent’s use of the PRUDENTIAL mark, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the mark.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant owns rights in the mark PRUDENTIAL dating back to 1960.
The disputed domain name was registered in 2018.
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark.
Respondent has used the disputed domain name to send fraudulent e-mails to pass off as Complainant and offer fraudulent goods.
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 is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark because it includes the PRUDENTIAL mark in its entirety and merely adds the letters “AG” and a gTLD. The addition of letters to Complainant’s mark may be insufficient to distinguish a domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See L.F.P., Inc. v. Yarbrough, FA 114420 (Forum July 9, 2002) (finding that <xxxbarelylegal.com> domain name to be confusingly similar to the complainant’s BARELY LEGAL mark because the addition of “xxx” was not a distinguishing addition). Further, the addition of a gTLD is irrelevant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See 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. Likewise, the absence of spaces must be disregarded under a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis because domain name syntax prohibits them.”). Therefore, the Panel finds that the <prudentialag.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s PRUDENTIAL mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant has not authorized or permitted Respondent to use its mark and in any way. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name: where a response is lacking, relevant WHOIS information may be used to identify the Respondent per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Dale Anderson, FA1504001613011 (Forum May 21, 2015) (concluding that because the WHOIS record lists “Dale Anderson” as the registrant of the disputed domain name, the respondent was not commonly known by the <statefarmforum.com> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)). Here, the WHOIS information of record identifies the registrant as “Christoph Sigrist / Jameson Services Consulting.” Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
Further, Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent uses an e-mail address associated with the disputed domain name to offer fraudulent stock offerings. Use of an e-mail address associated with the disputed domain name to either pass off as a complainant and/or offer fraudulent goods or services may evince a lack of rights or legitimate interest under a Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Emerson Electric Co. v. Adilcon Rocha, FA 1735949 (Forum July 11, 2017) (finding that respondent’s attempt to pass off as complainant through emails does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services and, as such, respondent lacked rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name); see also Cubist Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Gregory Stea, FA1403001550388 (Forum May 5, 2014) (“Respondent is using the domain name in emails to various IT hardware suppliers in an attempt to impersonate Complainant and defraud its customers. The domain name also resolved to a website similar to Complainant's website. The Panel found that such actions precluded a bona fide offer or fair use.”). Accordingly, Panel finds that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). And the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Respondent (who did not reply to Complainant’s contentions) has not presented any plausible explanation for its use of Complainant’s mark. In accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel shall draw such inferences from Respondent’s failure to reply as it considers appropriate. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent did not have a legitimate use in mind when registering the disputed domain name.
Indeed, as already noted, Respondent attempts intentionally to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users by passing off as Complainant through an e-mail address associated with the domain name in order to offer fraudulent securities. Use of an e-mail address to pass off as a complainant may constitute bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Airbnb, Inc. v. JAMES GRANT, FA1760182 (Forum Dec. 28, 2017) (“Using a misleading email address to defraud unwary customers certainly constitutes bad faith.”); see also Qatalyst Partners LP v. Devimore, FA 1393436 (Forum July 13, 2011) (finding that using the disputed domain name as an e-mail address to pass itself off as the complainant in a phishing scheme is evidence of bad faith registration and use per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)). Consequently, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <prudentialag.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Richard Hill, Panelist
Dated: January 28, 2019
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page