Conduent, Inc. v. Woodman Hill
Claim Number: FA2007001906007
Complainant is Conduent, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Steven M. Levy of FairWinds Partners LLC, District of Columbia. Respondent is Woodman Hill (“Respondent”), California.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <conduenttech.com>, registered with Wild West Domains, 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.
Richard Hill as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on July 27, 2020; the Forum received payment on July 27, 2020.
On July 28, 2020, Wild West Domains, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <conduenttech.com> domain name is registered with Wild West Domains, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Wild West Domains, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Wild West Domains, 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 28, 2020, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 17, 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@conduenttech.com. Also on July 28, 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 August 19, 2020, 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 it provides management services to private companies and government agencies. Just a few examples of these services include managing HR and insurance systems, transit systems, organizing employee learning programs, providing government payments, administering insurance claims, offering prepaid employee compensation cards and employee benefit programs, providing customer care services, and systems to access healthcare. Among Complainant’s main goals are the modernization of service delivery through automation, analytics, and human-centric process design. Complainant has become a partner to most of the Fortune 100 companies, most of the state governments of the 50 United States of America, and to many other governments around the world. Complainant is one of the world’s largest business process companies. Complainant has rights in the CONDUENT mark based on registration in the United States in 2017.
Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its CONDUENT mark because it wholly incorporates the mark and merely adds the generic term “tech” and the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”). Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
According to Complainant, Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use the CONDUENT mark. Additionally, Respondent does not use the disputed domain for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent inactively holds the disputed domain name with no intention to make use of it as the disputed domain resolves to an inactive webpage. Furthermore, Respondent uses the disputed domain name in furtherance of an email phishing scheme. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent uses the disputed domain name as part of an email phishing scheme for commercial gain. Additionally, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the CONDUENT mark based on the notoriety of the mark and Respondent’s use of the mark to perpetrate a phishing scam. Furthermore, Respondent’s bad faith is evidenced by Respondent’s failure to respond to Complainant’s cease and desist letters. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant owns the mark CONDUENT and uses it to market management services.
Complainant’s rights in its mark date back to 2017.
The disputed domain name was registered in 2020.
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark.
The disputed domain name is used in a fraudulent phishing scheme. Fraudulent letters attached to the fraudulent emails display Complainant’s mark and logo.
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”).
The disputed domain name wholly incorporates Complainant’s CONDUENT mark and merely adds the generic term “tech” and the “.com” gTLD. Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), the addition of a generic term and a gTLD to a mark does not negate any confusing similarity between a disputed domain name and mark. 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. Thus, the Panel finds Respondent’s disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s DELL mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”). Thus, the Panel finds that the <conduenttech.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s CONDUENT mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use the CONDUENT mark in any way. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name: when no response is submitted, WHOIS information can be used to show that a respondent is not commonly known by the disputed 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.”). Here, the WHOIS information lists “Woodman Hill” as the registrant. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
Respondent uses the disputed domain name as part of an email phishing scheme. Specifically, Complainant provides evidence that Respondent uses the disputed domain name to send emails to Internet users in an attempt to phish for personal information by encouraging the recipient to apply for a job that appears to be offered by Complainant. Use of a disputed domain name to phish for the personal information of Internet users is not considered a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii). See Chevron Intellectual Property LLC v. Thomas Webber / Chev Ronoil Recreational Sport Limited, FA 1661076 (Forum Mar. 15, 2016) (finding that the respondent had failed to provide a bona fide offering of goods or services or any legitimate noncommercial or fair use, stating, “Respondent is using an email address to pass themselves off as an affiliate of Complainant. Complainant presents evidence showing that the email address that Respondent has created is used to solicit information and money on false pretenses. The disputed domain name is being used to cause the recipients of these emails to mistakenly believe Respondent has a connection with Complainant and is one of the Complainant’s affiliates.”); see also Conduent, Inc. v. Nayeem Akbar, FA 1870846 (Forum Dec. 6, 2020) (no bona fide use found where “Respondent also falsely represents that the visitor has been accepted for employment with Complainant and solicits personal identifying information.”). Thus, The Panel finds that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). And the Panel finds that Respondent does not have 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 uses the disputed domain name in furtherance of an email phishing scheme. Under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv), bad faith may be found when a respondent uses a disputed domain name to create an impression of affiliation with a complainant as part of a phishing scheme. See 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); see also Avant, LLC v. Tracy Schutts, FA 1813864 (Forum Nov. 26, 2018) (bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) found where “Respondent registered and is using the Domain Name to phish for personal and private information, including specific, detailed information about bank accounts (account and bank routing numbers), from persons who are led to believe they are being considered for employment by Complainant.”). Thus, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
Further, Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s mark: the fraudulent letters attached to the fraudulent emails display Complainant’s mark and logo. While constructive notice is insufficient to demonstrate bad faith, actual knowledge of a complainant’s rights in a mark prior to registration may be evidence of bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Custom Modular Direct LLC v. Custom Modular Homes Inc., FA 1140580 (Forum Apr. 8, 2008) (“There is no place for constructive notice under the Policy.”); see also 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.”); see also 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). The Panel finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the mark prior to Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name and that this constitutes bad faith 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 <conduenttech.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Richard Hill, Panelist
Dated: August 19, 2020
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page