Robert Half International Inc. v. Kraferd
Claim Number: FA1907001852701
Complainant is Robert Half International Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by AJ Schumacher of Foley & Lardner LLP, New York, USA. Respondent is Kraferd (“Respondent”), California, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <roberthalfhr.com>, registered with Network Solutions, LLC.
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.
Charles A. Kuechenmeister
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on July 18, 2019; the Forum received payment on July 22, 2019.
On July 18, 2019, Network Solutions, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <roberthalfhr.com> domain name (the Domain Name) is registered with Network Solutions, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Network Solutions, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Network Solutions, LLC 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 July 23, 2019, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint setting a deadline of August 12, 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@roberthalfhr.com. Also on July 23, 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 August 14, 2019, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Charles A. Kuechenmeister 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 is a specialized employment staffing firm. It has rights in the ROBERT HALF mark through its registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 1,156,612, registered Jun. 2, 1981). Respondent’s Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark as it incorporates complainant’s mark in its entirety, merely adding the descriptive term “hr” (for “human resources”) and the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. It is not commonly known by the Domain Name, it is not a licensee or affiliate of Complainant, nor has it been otherwise authorized by Complainant to use Complainant’s mark. Furthermore, Respondent’s use is not a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. The Domain Name resolves to a web site which hosts generic hyperlinks that, in at least some instances, incorporate the ROBERT HALF mark, relate to Complainant and its business, and/or redirect Internet users to other companies offering competing employment staffing services, presumably for Respondent’s commercial gain through receipt of click-through fees.
Finally, Respondent’s Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Respondent is using the Domain Name to host a web site that contains links which, in at least some cases, incorporate the ROBERT HALF mark, relate to Complainant and its business, and/or redirect Internet users to other companies offering competing employment staffing for commercial gain. This disrupts Complainant’s business. Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in its mark when it registered the Domain Name.
B. Respondent
Respondent did not submit a Response in this proceeding.
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 Complainant to prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order cancelling or transferring the Domain Name.
(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, pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules the Panel will decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”) at ¶ 4.3, eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (“Because Complainant did not produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations [. . .] the Panel finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint”).
The ROBERT HALF mark was registered to Complainant with the USPTO (Registration No. 1,156,612) on June 2, 1981 (Complaint Exhibit 3). A complainant’s registration of its mark with the USPTO is sufficient to establish its rights in that mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). DIRECTV, LLC v. The Pearline Group, FA 1818749 (Forum Dec. 30, 2018) (“Complainant’s ownership of a USPTO registration for DIRECTV demonstrate its rights in such mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”).
Respondent’s <roberthalfhr.com> Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ROBERT HALF mark as it incorporates the mark verbatim, merely adding the descriptive term “hr” for human resources and the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”). These changes are not sufficient to distinguish the Domain Name from Complainant’s mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). The Toronto-Dominion Bank v. George Whitehead, FA 1784412 (Forum June 11, 2018) (“[S]light differences between domain names and registered marks, such as the addition of words that describe the goods or services in connection with the mark and gTLDs, do not distinguish the domain name from the mark incorporated therein per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”). In fact, the added generic term “hr,” a common acronym for human resources, actually exacerbates the confusion because it suggests the same services offered by Complainant under its ROBERT HALF mark (Declaration of Michelle Whitman Coryer submitted with Complaint); Capital One Financial Corp. v. Domain Admin / Whois Privacy Corp., FA 1582803 (Forum Nov. 13, 2014) (finding that “the descriptive phrase ‘auto loan’ as included in [the <capitaloneautoloan.org>] domain name enhances the confusing similarity of the domain name.”). The WIPO Overview 3.0 at ¶ 1.7, states that the test for confusing similarity “typically involves a side-by-side comparison of the domain name and the textual components of the relevant trademark to assess whether the mark is recognizable within the domain name.” Notwithstanding the changes described above, Complainant’s mark is clearly recognizable within the Domain Name, and this establishes its confusing similarity to Complainant’s mark.
For the reasons set forth above, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the ROBERT HALF mark, in which Complainant has substantial and demonstrated rights.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
If a complainant makes a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), the burden of production shifts to the respondent to come forward with evidence that it has rights or legitimate interests in it. Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) (“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”). If a respondent fails to come forward with such evidence, the complainant’s prima facie evidence will be sufficient to establish that respondent lacks such rights or legitimate interests. If the respondent does come forward with such evidence, the Panel must assess the evidence in its entirety. At all times, the burden of proof remains on the complainant. WIPO Overview 3.0, at ¶ 2.1.
Policy ¶ 4(c) lists the following three nonexclusive circumstances, any one of which if proven can demonstrate a respondent’s rights or legitimate interests in a domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii):
(i) before any notice to Respondent of the dispute, Respondent has used or has made demonstrable preparations to use the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or
(ii) Respondent (as an individual, business or other organization) has been commonly known by the domain name, even if Respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
(iii) Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.
Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name because (i) Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name, (ii) Respondent has no affiliation with Complainant, nor has Complainant authorized Respondent to use its mark in any way, and (iii) Respondent is not using the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use in that the Domain Name resolves to a web site containing links which, in at least some cases, incorporate the ROBERT HALF mark, relate to Complainant and its business, and/or redirect Internet users to other companies offering competing employment staffing services, for commercial gain. These allegations are addressed as follows:
The WHOIS report (Complaint Exhibit 1) lists the registrant of the Domain Name as “Kraferd.” This name bears no resemblance to the Domain Name. Evidence could, of course, in a given case demonstrate that the respondent is commonly known by a domain name different from the name in which it registered the domain name, e.g., the case of a domain name incorporating the brand name of a specific product offered by and associated with the respondent. In the absence of any such or similar evidence, however, UDRP panels have consistently held that a registrant name that is materially different from the domain name at issue is competent evidence that the respondent is not commonly known by the domain name. Guardair Corporation v. Pablo Palermo, FA1407001571060 (Forum Aug. 28, 2014) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <guardair.com> domain name according to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), as the WHOIS information lists “Pablo Palermo” as registrant of the disputed domain name), Chevron Intellectual Property LLC v. Fred Wallace, FA1506001626022 (Forum July 27, 2015) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <chevron-europe.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), as the WHOIS information named “Fred Wallace” as registrant of the disputed domain name). There is no evidence before the Panel to suggest that Respondent has been commonly known by the Domain Name, and the Panel finds that it has not been so known.
Complainant states that Respondent is not an affiliate or licensee of Complainant, and that Complainant has never licensed or authorized Respondent to use its mark. Complainant has specific competence to make this statement, and it is unchallenged by any evidence before the Panel. In the absence of evidence that a respondent is authorized to use a complainant’s mark in a domain name or that a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name, the respondent may be presumed to lack rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. IndyMac Bank F.S.B. v. Eshback, FA 830934 (Forum Dec. 7, 2006) (finding that the respondent failed to establish rights and legitimate interests in the <emitmortgage.com> domain name as the respondent was not authorized to register domain names featuring the complainant’s mark and failed to submit evidence that it is commonly known by the domain name), Indeed, Inc. v. Ankit Bhardwaj / Recruiter, FA 1739470 (Forum Aug. 3, 2017) (”Respondent lacks both rights and legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant’s trademark in any capacity and, as discussed below, there are no Policy ¶ 4(c) circumstances from which the Panel might find that Respondent has rights or interests in respect of the at-issue domain name.”).
Complainant Exhibit 2 contains a screenshot of the web site resolving from the Domain Name. It contains hyperlinks to other web sites, which links are labeled as “Executive Jobs,” “Robert Half Recruitment,” “HR Executive Jobs,” and “Payroll Companies.” Clicking on these links, Internet users may be redirected to competing job postings and staffing services (Declaration of Jeanna-marie Oleksy submitted with Complaint). Respondent is obviously using the Domain Name for a commercial site hosting pay-per-click links to sites some of which purport to be related to Complainant and others which compete with Complainant. Using a confusingly similar domain name to host such links does not qualify as a bona fide offering of goods or services within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). Yahoo! Inc. v. Web Master, FA 127717 (Forum Nov. 27, 2002) (finding that the respondent’s use of a confusingly similar domain name to operate a pay-per-click search engine, in competition with the complainant, was not a bona fide offering of goods or services), Correct Craft IP Holdings, LLC v. Katz, FA1711001757990 (Forum Dec. 6, 2017) (finding no bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use when the disputed domain name resolved to a website hosting, in part, hyperlinks to third-party websites that were unrelated to the complainant).
Complainant has made its prima facie case. On the evidence presented, and in the absence of any evidence from Respondent, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name.
(i) circumstances indicating that Respondent has registered or Respondent has acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant which is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of Respondent’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
(ii) Respondent has registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
(iii) Respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) by using the domain name, Respondent has 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 of service on Respondent’s web site or location.
The evidence of Respondent’s use of the Domain Name set forth above in the rights or legitimate interests analysis also supports a finding of bad faith use and registration of that domain, based upon the foregoing grounds articulated in the Policy and upon additional grounds adopted by UDRP panels over the years. First, Respondent is clearly using the Domain Name to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its web site by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of its web site, as described in Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). Respondent is obtaining commercial gain from its use of the Domain Name and the resolving web site. When a visitor to this web site clicks on one of the links which appear there, Respondent receives compensation from the various web site owners who are forwarded from the site. Most likely, Respondent receives compensation based upon the number of hits the web site owners get from being linked to Respondent’s web site. AllianceBernstein LP v. Texas International Property Associates - NA NA, Case No. D2008-1230 (WIPO, 2008), and Brownells, Inc. v. Texas International Property Associates, Case No. D2007-1211 (WIPO, 2007), (finding in similar cases that a respondent intentionally attempted to attract internet searchers for commercial gain). Respondent’s use of the Domain Name is commercial also because the various companies forwarded from the web sites benefit from the subsequent interest and purchases of those who visit the sites. UDRP panels have held that there only needs to be commercial gain sought by some party for the use to be commercial. Focus Do It All Group v. Athanasios Sermbizis, Case No. D2000-0923 (WIPO,2000) (finding that “[I]t is enough that commercial gain is being sought for someone” for a use to be commercial).
Second, Respondent is using the Domain Name to offer links to businesses that compete with Complainant. This diverts business from Complainant and disrupts Complainant’s business. Respondent’s conduct thus fits also within the circumstances articulated by Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and is evidence of bad faith registration and use. Artisan Partners Holdings LP v. Privacy Gods, FA1702001719182 (Forum Apr. 14, 2017) (“Respondent registered and uses the . . . domain name in bad faith because Respondent uses the disputed domain name to resolve to a website which displays . . . links to Complainant’s competitors. Such behavior disrupts Complainant’s business and demonstrates bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).”)
Finally, it is evident from Complainant’s long and well-known presence in the specialized employment staffing industry, from the fact that Respondent incorporated Complainant’s mark verbatim into the Domain Name, and from the fact that Respondent uses the Domain Name to advertise businesses operating in the same industry as Complainant, that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s mark in June 2019, when it registered the Domain Name (the WHOIS report, Complaint Exhibit 1, establishes the registration date). Policy ¶ 4(b) recognizes that mischief can assume many different forms and takes an open-ended approach to bad faith, listing some examples without attempting to enumerate all its varieties. Worldcom Exchange, Inc. v. Wei.com, Inc., WIPO Case No. D-2004-0955 (January 5, 2005). The non-exclusive nature of Policy ¶ 4(b) allows for consideration of additional factors in an analysis for bad faith, and registering a confusingly similar domain name with actual knowledge of a complainant’s rights in its mark has often been held to be evidence of bad faith registration and use for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). Univision Comm'cns Inc. v. Norte, FA 1000079 (Forum Aug. 16, 2007) (rejecting the respondent's contention that it did not register the disputed domain name in bad faith since the panel found that the respondent had knowledge of the complainant's rights in the UNIVISION mark when registering the disputed domain name).
For the reasons set forth above, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Complainant having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <roberthalfhr.com> Domain Name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Charles A. Kuechenmeister, Panelist
August 15, 2019
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page