Robert Half International Inc. v. Yang Zhi Chao
Claim Number: FA2103001935178
Complainant is Robert Half International Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by AJ Schumacher of Foley & Lardner LLP, Illinois, USA. Respondent is Yang Zhi Chao (“Respondent”), China.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <roberthalfbenefit.com> and <roberthalfbenfits.com> (‘the Domain Names’), registered with DNSPod, Inc.
The undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Dawn Osborne as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on March 2, 2021; the Forum received payment on March 2, 2021. The Complaint was received in English.
On March 4, 2021, DNSPod, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <roberthalfbenefit.com> and <roberthalfbenfits.com> domain names are registered with DNSPod, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. DNSPod, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the DNSPod, 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 March 8, 2021, the Forum served the English language Complaint and all Annexes, including a Chinese and English language Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 29, 2021 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@roberthalfbenefit.com, postmaster@roberthalfbenfits.com. Also on March 8, 2021, the Chinese and English language 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 April 5, 2021 pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Dawn Osborne 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 Names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
PRELIMINARY ISSUE: LANGUAGE OF PROCEEDING
Pursuant to UDRP Rule 11(a), the Panel finds that persuasive evidence has been adduced by Complainant to suggest the likely possibility that the Respondent is conversant and proficient in the English language. After considering the circumstance of the present case, the Panel decides that the proceeding should be in English.
A. Complainant
The Complainant’s contentions can be summarized as follows:
The Complainant is the owner of the trade mark ROBERT HALF registered, inter alia, in the United States and China for employment agency services with first use recorded in the USA as 1948. It has owned roberthalf.com since 1995. Complainant provides its employee benefits information at its official domain name roberthalfbenefits.com.
The Domain Names registered in 2020 are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark containing it in its entirety and only adding the generic term ‘benefit’ or a misspelling of it. The gTLD “.com” is disregarded for the purposes of a confusing similarity analysis.
The Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names and is not authorized by the Complainant. The Domain Names have been used for pay per click links and are typosquatting versions of the Complainant’s official site at roberthalfbenefits.com so there is no bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use.
Typosquatting is an indication of opportunistic bad faith and requisite knowledge per se. Use for pay per click links is bad faith and diverts Internet users for commercial gain disrupting the Complainant’s business. The Domain Names have been registered and used in opportunistic bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
The Complainant is the owner of the trade mark ROBERT HALF registered, inter alia, in the United States and China for employment agency services with first use recorded in the USA as 1948. It has owned roberthalf.com since 1995. Complainant provides its employee benefits information at its official domain name roberthalfbenefits.com.
The Domain Names registered in 2020 have been used for competing pay per click links.
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 Domain Names combine the Complainant’s ROBERT HALF mark (registered, inter alia, in the USA and China for employment agency services with first use in the USA since 1948), the generic word ‘benefit’ or a misspelling of it and the gTLD “.com”.
Adding a generic term or a misspelled generic term and a gTLD does not prevent confusing similarity between the Domain Names and the Complainant’s mark. See Wiluna Holdings, LLC v. Edna Sherman, FA 1652781 (Forum Jan. 22, 2016) (Finding the addition of a generic term and gTLD is insufficient in distinguishing a disputed domain name from a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).). Additionally, misspelled terms in a disputed domain name do not negate confusing similarity. See Acme Lift Company, L.L.C. v. VistaPrint Technologies Ltd, FA 1607039 (Forum Apr. 11, 2015).
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Domain Names are confusingly similar to a mark in which the Complainant has rights for the purpose of the Policy.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant has not authorized the use of its mark. The Respondent has not answered this Complaint and there is no evidence or reason to suggest the Respondent is, in fact, commonly known by the Domain Names. See Alaska Air Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines v. Song Bin, FA1408001574905 (Forum September 17, 2014) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name as demonstrated by the WHOIS information and based on the fact that the complainant had not licensed or authorized the respondent to use its ALASKA AIRLINES mark).
The Respondent has used the sites attached to the Domain Names to link to third party businesses that compete with the Complainant. He does not make it clear that there is no commercial connection with the Complainant. The Panel finds this use is confusing. As such it cannot amount to the bona fide offering of goods and services. See Ashley Furniture Industries Inc. v. domain admin /private registrations aitken Gesellschaft, FA 1506001626253 (Forum July 29, 2015) (linking to pay per click links does not amount to a bona fide offering of goods and services or a legitimate noncommercial fair use).
The Domain Names appear to be typosquatting versions of an official domain name owned by the Complainant. Typosquatting can provide additional evidence that a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name per Policy 4(a)(ii). See Webster Financial Corporation and Webster Bank, National Association v. Pham Dinh Nhut, FA1502001605819 (Forum Apr. 17, 2015) (“Respondent’s acts of typosquatting provide additional evidence that respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names pursuant to Policy 4(a)(ii).”).
As such the Panelist finds that the Respondent does not have rights or a legitimate interest in the Domain Names and that the Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
The Respondent has not answered this Complaint or explained why it should be allowed to register domain names containing the Complainant’s mark and a sign confusingly similar to one of its official sites in what appears on the face of it to be a typosquatting registration.
Typosquatting itself is evidence of relevant bad faith registration and use. See Diners Club int'l Ltd. v. Domain Admin ****** It's all in the name ******, FA 156839 (Forum June 23, 2003) (registering a domain name in the hope that Internet users will mistype the Complainant’s mark and be taken to the Respondent’s site is registration and use in bad faith). Typosquatting also indicates the Respondent had knowledge of the Complainant and its rights. See InfoSpace, Inc. v. Greiner, FA 227653 (Forum Mar. 8, 2004) (“Respondent’s domain name is a simple and popular variation of a trademark commonly used by typosquatters …Such a domain name evidences actual knowledge of the underlying mark prior to the registration of the domain name, and as Respondent failed to submit any evidence to counter this inferrence [sic], Respondent’s actions evidence bad faith registration of the disputed domain name.”).
Further use made of the Domain Names in relation to sites for pay per click links is confusing and disruptive in that visitors to the sites might reasonably believe they are connected to or approved by the Complainant as they provide links to competing services under Domain Names containing the Complainant’s mark. Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain Internet users to his websites by creating likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trademarks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the web sites or services offered on them likely to disrupt the business of the Complainant. See Health Republic Insurance Company v. Above.comLegal, FA 1506001622088, (Forum July 10, 2015) re diversion to pay per click links.
As such, the Panel holds that the Complainant has made out its case that the Domain Names were registered and used in bad faith and has satisfied the third limb of the Policy under paragraphs 4(b)(iii) and 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 <roberthalfbenefit.com> and <roberthalfbenfits.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Dawn Osborne, Panelist
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page