Munck Wilson Mandala, LLP v. deckerconstructions / Decker Dalgetty
Claim Number: FA2010001917872
Complainant is Munck Wilson Mandala, LLP (“Complainant”), represented by Matthew S. Anderson of Munck Wilson Mandala, LLP, Texas. Respondent is deckerconstructions / Decker Dalgetty (“Respondent”), New York.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <munckvvilson.com>, registered with Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Openprovider.
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.
The Honourable Neil Anthony Brown QC as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on October 21, 2020; the Forum received payment on October 21, 2020.
On October 22, 2020, Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Openprovider confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <munckvvilson.com> domain name is registered with Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Openprovider and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Openprovider has verified that Respondent is bound by the Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Openprovider 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 23, 2020, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of November 12, 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@munckvvilson.com. Also on October 23, 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 November 18, 2020, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed The Honourable Neil Anthony Brown QC 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 made the following contentions.
Complainant contends that Complainant is a successful and well-known United States law firm. Complainant provides legal services under the trademark/service mark MUNCK WILSON and is well-known in commerce, the legal community, and by the public as MUNCK WILSON. Complainant has common law trademark rights in the MUNCK WILSON mark through longstanding use of the mark, advertising, Complainant’s identical domain name, and the widespread recognition of Complainant’s mark. See Compl. Exhibits C – T. Respondent’s <munckvvilson.com> is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s MUNCK WILSON mark as it incorporates Complainant’s mark but replaces the “w” in “munckwilson” with a “vv” and adds the gTLD “.com”.
Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the <munckvvilson.com> domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name nor has Respondent been authorized by Complainant to use the MUNCK WILSON mark. Respondent has not used the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services as the disputed domain name fails to resolve to an active webpage. Furthermore, Respondent uses the disputed domain name to send emails mimicking Complainant’s employees in furtherance of a financial scam.
Respondent registered and uses the <munckvvilson.com> domain name in bad faith. Respondent uses the disputed domain name to send emails mimicking Complainant’s employees in furtherance of a financial scam. Furthermore, had actual or constructive knowledge of Complainant’s MUNCK WILSON mark evidenced by Respondent’s attempts to impersonate an employee of Complainant. Respondent also engaged in typosquatting.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
1. Complainant is a United States business that is a successful and well-known law firm.
2. Complainant has established its common law trademark rights in the MUNCK WILSON mark from at least the year 2012.
3. Respondent registered the <munckvvilson.com> domain name on October 16, 2020.
4. Respondent improperly uses the disputed domain name to send emails mimicking Complainant’s employees in furtherance of a financial scam.
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 first question that arises is whether Complainant has rights in a trademark or service mark on which it may rely. Complainant submits that it has common law trademark rights in the MUNCK WILSON mark because the mark has acquired secondary meaning through Complainant’s longstanding use of the mark, advertising with the mark, Complainant’s identical domain name, and the widespread recognition of Complainant’s mark. See Compl. Exhibits C – T. When a complainant lacks a registered trademark, common law rights in a mark may satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Psyonix Inc. v. robert gray / notpsyonix, FA 1759780 (Forum Jan. 3, 2018) (“Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) does not require a complainant to own a trademark prior to a respondent’s registration if it can demonstrate established common law rights in the mark.”). Additionally, secondary meaning can be evidenced by longstanding use, holding an identical domain name, advertising, and media recognition of the mark. See Marquette Golf Club v. Al Perkins, 1738263 (Forum July, 27, 2017) (finding that Complainant had established its common law rights in the MARQUETTE GOLF CLUB mark with evidence of secondary meaning, including “longstanding use; evidence of holding an identical domain name; media recognition; and promotional material/advertising.”). Therefore, the Panel finds Complainant has demonstrated that it has had common law trademark rights in the MUNCK WILSON mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) at least since the year 2012.
The next question that arises is whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s MUNCK WILSON mark. Complainant argues Respondent’s <munckvvilson.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s MUNCK WILSON mark as it incorporates Complainant’s mark but replaces the “w” in “munckwilson” with the letters “vv” and adds the gTLD “.com”. The intentional misspelling of a mark and the addition of a gTLD fails to distinguish a disputed domain name sufficiently from a mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Bank of America Corporation v. Above.com Domain Privacy, FA 1629452 (Forum Aug. 18, 2015) (finding that the <blankofamerica.com> domain name contains the entire BANK OF AMERICA mark and merely adds the gTLD ‘.com’ and the letter ‘l’ to create a common misspelling of the word ‘bank.’). Therefore, the Panel finds the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant has thus made out the first of the three elements that it must establish.
It is now well established that Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)); see also 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”).
The Panel finds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case that arises from the following considerations:
(a) Respondent has chosen to take Complainant’s MUNCK WILSON trademark and to use it in its domain name, making only a minor spelling alteration which does not negate the confusing similarity between the domain name and the trademark;
(b) Respondent registered the <munckvvilson.com> domain name on October 16, 2020;
(c) Respondent has improperly used the disputed domain name to send emails mimicking Complainant’s employees in furtherance of a financial scam;
(d) Respondent has engaged in these activities without the consent or approval of Complainant;
(e) Complainant contends Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the <munckvvilson.com> domain name as Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name nor has Complainant authorized or licensed to Respondent any rights in the MUNCK WILSON mark. When a response is lacking, relevant WHOIS information may be used to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See 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); see also Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. LY Ta, FA 1789106 (Forum June 21, 2018) (concluding a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name where the complainant asserted it did not authorize the respondent to use the mark, and the relevant WHOIS information indicated the respondent is not commonly known by the domain name). Additionally, lack of authorization to use a complainant’s mark may indicate that the respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. See Emerson Electric Co. v. golden humble / golden globals, FA 1787128 (Forum June 11, 2018) (“lack of evidence in the record to indicate a respondent is authorized to use [the] complainant’s mark may support a finding that [the] respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)”). The WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the registrant as “Decker Dalgetty/deckerconstructions,” and Complainant argues there is no other evidence to suggest that Respondent was authorized to use the MUNCK WILSON mark. Therefore, the Panel finds Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii);
(f) Complainant argues that Respondent fails to use the <munckvvilson.com> domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use as the disputed domain name fails to resolve to an active webpage. Failure to make active use of a disputed domain name may not be a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Activision Blizzard, Inc. / Activision Publishing, Inc. / Blizzard Entertainment, Inc. v. Cimpress Schweiz GmbH, FA 1737429 (Forum Aug. 3, 2017) (“Complainant insists that Respondent has made no demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain name. When Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with an active website, the Panel may find that Respondent is not using the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services… As Respondent has not provided a response to this action, Respondent has failed to meet its burden regarding proof of any rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain.”). Here, Complainant argues that no active webpage resolves from the disputed domain name. Therefore, the Panel finds Respondent fails to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii);
(g) Complainant argues that Respondent fails to use the <munckvvilson.com> domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use as Respondent uses the disputed domain name to send emails mimicking Complainant’s employees in furtherance of a financial scam. Using a confusingly similar domain name to pass itself off as a complainant in furtherance of a financial scam may not be a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per 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 Goodwin Procter LLP v. GAYLE FANDETTI, FA 1738231 (Forum Aug. 8, 2017) (“[T]he Domain Name has been used in an attempted fraud. As such it cannot have been registered for a legitimate purpose.”). Here, Complainant provides screenshots of emails from Respondent in which Respondent passes itself off as an employee of Complainant in an attempt to trick Complainant’s client into paying Respondent. See Compl. Exhibit V and W. Therefore, the Panel finds Respondent fails to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).
All of these matters go to make out the prima facie case against Respondent. As Respondent has not filed a Response or attempted by any other means to rebut the prima facie case against it, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Complainant has thus made out the second of the three elements that it must establish.
It is clear that to establish bad faith for the purposes of the Policy, Complainant must show that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith and has been used in bad faith. It is also clear that the criteria set out in Policy ¶ 4(b) for establishing bad faith are not exclusive, but that Complainants in UDRP proceedings may also rely on conduct that is bad faith within the generally accepted meaning of that expression.
Having regard to those principles, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith. That is so for the following reasons.
First, Complainant contends Respondent registered and uses the <munckvvilson.com> domain name in bad faith as Respondent uses the disputed domain name to send emails mimicking Complainant’s employees in furtherance of a financial scam. Using a confusingly similar domain to pass off as an employee of a complainant can demonstrate bad faith per Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv). See Abbvie, Inc. v. James Bulow, FA 1701075 (Forum Nov. 30, 2016) (“Respondent uses the <abbuie.com> domain name to impersonate Complainant’s CEO. Such use is undeniably disruptive to Complainant’s business and demonstrates bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii), and/or Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)”). The Panel recalls that Complainant provides screenshots of emails in which Respondent attempts to pass itself off as an employee of Complainant. See Compl. Exhibits V and W. Therefore, the Panel finds Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith per Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv).
Secondly, Complainant contends Respondent registered the <munckvvilson.com> domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the MUNCK WILSON mark based on Respondent’s attempts to impersonate Complainant’s mark, domain name, and email addresses. Attempting to pass off as a complainant can demonstrate actual knowledge of a complainant’s rights to a mark and show bad faith. See Spectrum Brands, Inc. v. Guo Li Bo, FA 1760233 (Forum January 5, 2018) (“[T]he fact Respondent registered a domain name that looked identical to the SPECTRUM BRANDS mark and used that as an email address to pass itself off as Complainant shows that Respondent knew of Complainant and its trademark rights at the time of registration.”). The Panel recalls that Complainant provides screenshots of emails in which Respondent attempts to pass itself off as an employee of Complainant. See Compl. Exhibits V and W. Therefore, the Panel finds Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Thirdly, Complainant contends Respondent registered and uses the <munckvvilson.com> domain name in bad faith as Respondent engaged in typosquatting. Typosquatting can further evidence bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Cost Plus Management Services, Inc. v. xushuaiwei, FA 1800036 (Forum Sep. 7, 2018) (“Typosquatting itself is evidence of relevant bad faith registration and use.”). Complainant argues that Respondent has engaged in typosquatting by replacing the “w” in “munckwilson” with a “vv” to produce “munckvvilson.” As the Panel agrees, the Panel finds Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Fourthly, in addition and having regard to the totality of the evidence, the Panel finds that, in view of Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name using the MUNCK WILSON mark and in view of the conduct that Respondent has engaged in when using the disputed domain name, Respondent registered and used it in bad faith within the generally accepted meaning of that expression.
Complainant has thus made out the third of the three elements that it must establish.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <munckvvilson.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
The Honourable Neil Anthony Brown QC
Panelist
Dated: November 20, 2020
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page