McGuireWoods LLP v. Domain Administrator / Fundacion Privacy Services LTD
Claim Number: FA2006001898916
Complainant is McGuireWoods LLP (“Complainant”), represented by Amanda L. DeFord of McGuireWoods LLP, Virginia, USA. Respondent is Domain Administrator / Fundacion Privacy Services LTD (“Respondent”), Panama.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <onemcguirewoods.com>, registered with Media Elite Holdings Limited.
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.
Bruce E. Meyerson as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on June 4, 2020; the Forum received payment on June 4, 2020.
On June 5, 2020, Media Elite Holdings Limited confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <onemcguirewoods.com> domain name is registered with Media Elite Holdings Limited and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Media Elite Holdings Limited has verified that Respondent is bound by the Media Elite Holdings Limited 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 June 9, 2020, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of June 29, 2020 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@onemcguirewoods.com. Also on June 9, 2020, 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 July 3, 2020, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Bruce E. Meyerson 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
1. Complainant, McGuireWoods LLP, is an international law firm that provides a wide variety of legal services to its clients. Complainant has rights in the MCGUIREWOODS mark based upon its registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 2,483,615, registered Aug. 28, 2001).
2. Respondent’s <onemcguirewoods.com>[i] domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s MCGUIREWOODS mark because it wholly incorporates the mark, simply adding the generic term “one” and the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).
3. Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <onemcguirewoods.com> domain name. Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant’s MCGUIREWOODS mark and is not commonly known by the domain name.
4. Additionally, Respondent does not use the domain for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent uses the domain name to resolve to a parking page populated by pay-per-click advertisements.
5. Respondent registered and uses the <onemcguirewoods.com> domain name in bad faith. Respondent is attempting to attract Internet users to its webpage which resolves to pay-per-click advertisements.
6. Lastly, Respondent registered the domain name with actual or constructive knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the MCGUIREWOODS mark.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant holds trademark rights for the MCGUIREWOODS mark. Respondent’s domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s MCGUIREWOODS mark. Complainant has established that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the use of the <onemcguirewoods.com> domain name and that Respondent registered and uses the domain name 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 set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at ¶ 4.3; see also 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”).
Complainant has rights in the MCGUIREWOODS mark based upon its registration of the mark with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 2,483,615, registered Aug. 28, 2001). Registration of a mark with the USPTO is sufficient to establish rights in a mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Nintendo of America Inc. v. lin amy, FA 1818485 (Forum Dec. 24, 2018) ("Complainant’s ownership a USPTO trademark registration for the NINTENDO mark evidences Complainant’s rights in such mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)”). Complainant provides evidence of registration of the MCGUIREWOODS mark with the USPTO; therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant argues that Respondent’s <onemcguirewoods.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark because it wholly incorporates Complainant’s MCGUIREWOODS mark, simply adding the generic term “one” and the “.com” gTLD. The addition of a generic term and a gTLD to a mark may not negate any confusing similarity between a domain name and a mark per ¶ 4(a)(i). See Dell Inc. v. pushpender chauhan, FA 1784548 (Forum June 11, 2018) (“Respondent merely adds the term ‘supports’ and a ‘.org’ gTLD to the DELL mark. The Panel finds Respondent’s <onemcguirewoods.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s MCGUIREWOODS mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)”).
The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant alleges that Respondent holds no rights or legitimate interests in the <onemcguirewoods.com> domain name. This allegation must be supported with a prima facie showing by Complainant under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). After a complainant successfully makes a prima facie case, a respondent is faced with the burden of proving it does have rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. In Swedish Match UK Ltd. v. Admin, Domain, FA 873137 (Forum Feb. 13, 2007), the panel held that when a complainant produces a prima facie case, the burden of proof then shifts to the respondent to demonstrate its rights or legitimate interests in the domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c); see also Compagnie Generale des Matieres Nucleaires v. Greenpeace Int’l, D2001-0376 (WIPO May 14, 2001) (“For the purposes of this sub paragraph, however, it is sufficient for the Complainant to show a prima facie case and the burden of proof is then shifted on to the shoulders of Respondent. In those circumstances, the common approach is for respondents to seek to bring themselves within one of the examples of paragraph 4(c) or put forward some other reason why they can fairly be said to have a relevant right or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name in question.”). The Panel holds that Complainant has made a prima facie case.
Complainant argues that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <onemcguirewoods.com> domain name because Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant’s MCGUIREWOODS mark and is not commonly known by the domain name. Where a response is lacking, WHOIS information can be used to show that a respondent is not commonly known by a domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See H-D U.S.A., LLC, v. ilyas Aslan / uok / Domain Admin ContactID 5645550 / FBS INC / Whoisprotection biz, FA 1785313 (Forum June 25, 2018) (“The publicly available WHOIS information identifies Respondent as ‘Ilyas Aslan’ and so there is no prima facie evidence that Respondent might be commonly known by either of the [<harleybot.bid> and <harleybot.com>] domain names”). Additionally, lack of authorization to use a mark can constitute a further showing that a respondent lacks rights in a mark. 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). The WHOIS information of record notes “Domain Administrator / Fundacion Privacy Services Ltd” as the registrant and no information in the record suggests that Complainant has authorized Respondent to use the MCGUIREWOODS mark in any way or that Respondent is commonly known by the <onemcguirewoods.com> domain name. Thus, Respondent is not commonly known by the <onemcguirewoods.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
Additionally, Complainant argues that Respondent does not use the <onemcguirewoods.com> domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent uses the domain name to resolve to a website containing pay-per-click advertisements. Use of a domain name incorporating the mark of another to resolve to a site displaying pay-per-click advertisements generally does not qualify as a bona fide offering of goods or services. See Insomniac Holdings, LLC v. Mark Daniels, FA 1735969 (Forum July 15, 2017) (the domain name in dispute “resolves to a site containing pay-per-click hyperlinks and advertisements… Since these kinds of advertisements generate revenue for the holder of a domain name, they cannot be noncommercial; further, they do not qualify as a bona fide offering”). Here, Complainant has provided screenshots of Respondent’s web page which displays a commercial parking page that includes sponsored links to, among other goods and services, “Legal One,” “Law Firm,” “Bankruptcy Lawyers,” “Law Firms Nearby,” and “Attorneys Nearby.” The Panel agrees with Complainant that this does not amount to a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).
The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Complainant argues that Respondent has registered and uses the <onemcguirewoods.com> domain name in bad faith. Specifically, Complainant alleges Respondent uses the domain name to misdirect users to a commercial website which hosts advertisements and links to third-party sites. Using a confusingly similar domain name to commercially benefit via, pay-per-click links amounts to bad faith registration and use per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Tumblr, Inc. v. Ailing Liu, FA1402001543807 (Forum Mar. 24, 2014) (“Bad faith use and registration exists under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where a respondent uses a confusingly similar domain name to resolve to a website featuring links and advertisements unrelated to complainant’s business and respondent is likely collecting fees”); see also Vivint, Inc. v. Online Management, FA1403001549084 (Forum Apr. 23, 2014) (holding that the respondent had registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith according to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the disputed domain name resolved to a parking page that featured no content besides sponsored advertisements and links). Complainant has provided screenshots of Respondent’s website which features advertisements and links to third-party websites. Thus, Respondent registered and uses the <onemcguirewoods.com> domain name in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
Lastly, Complainant argues that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the MCGUIREWOODS mark when registering the disputed domain name. Actual knowledge of a complainant’s rights in a mark at the time of registration of a domain name can be bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Orbitz Worldwide, LLC v. Domain Librarian, FA 1535826 (Forum Feb. 6, 2014) (“The Panel notes that although the UDRP does not recognize ‘constructive notice’ as sufficient grounds for finding Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) bad faith, the Panel here finds actual knowledge through the name used for the domain and the use made of it”). Actual knowledge of a mark can be established by showing the fame and notoriety of the mark. See Snap Inc. v. Deepika Priyadarshinie / entsl, FA 1788600 (Forum June 21, 2018) (finding the respondent had actual knowledge of the complainant and its rights in the claimed mark due to the fame of the mark, established by the complainant’s submission of numerous articles regarding the success of the complainant’s product). Complainant has provided evidence of its long-standing and well-known use of the MCGUIREWOODS mark. The Panel determines this is sufficient to find bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied 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 <onemcguirewoods.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Bruce E. Meyerson, Panelist
Dated: July 11, 2020
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page