Haynes and Boone, LLP v. Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf
Claim Number: FA2104001942729
Complainant: Haynes and Boone, LLP of Dallas, Texas, United States of America.
Complainant self-represented.
Respondent: Mineserver Mineown of Coventry, Coventry, International, United Kingdom.
Respondent unrepresented.
REGISTRY and REGISTRAR
Registry: AC Webconnecting Holding B.V.
Registrar: NameCheap, Inc.
The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Examiner in this proceeding.
Debrett Gordon Lyons, as Examiner.
Complainant submitted: April 25, 2021
Commencement: April 26, 2021
Default Date: May 11, 2021
Having reviewed the communications records, the Examiner finds that the Forum has discharged its responsibility under URS Procedure, Paragraphs 3 and 4 and Rule 4 of the Rules for the Uniform Rapid Suspension System (the "Rules") .
Complainant requests that the domain name be suspended for the life of the registration.
Clear and convincing evidence.
Complainant is an international law firm which has offered legal services by reference to the registered trademark HAYNESBOONE for several decades (see USPTO Regn. No. 4,551,768 from June 17, 2014). Registrant is using the trademark without authority. The Disputed Domain Name resolves to an index of .shtml files designed to mimic standard HTTP error messages. It is Complainant’s reasonable allegation that the domain name draws in internet users looking for Complainant’s official website and causes what will seem to be standard HTTP error messages to appear thereby allowing Respondent to ‘fingerprint’ users (potentially Complainant’s employees or clients).
Even though the Respondent has defaulted, URS Procedure 1.2.6, requires Complainant to make a prima facie case, proven by clear and convincing evidence, for each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be suspended.
1.2.6.1. that the registered domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a word mark: (i) for which the Complainant holds a valid national or regional registration and that is in current use; or (ii) that has been validated through court proceedings; or (iii) that is specifically protected by a statute or treaty in effect at the time the URS complaint is filed.
The evidence shows that Complainant holds a valid national registration which is in use. Further, the Examiner finds that the domain name is legally identical to the trademark and so finds the first element to be established.
1.2.6.2. that the Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name.
There is nothing to suggest Registrant is commonly known by the domain name or that it has trademark rights of its own. Respondent has used Complainant’s trademark without permission and in the manner described which does not amount to a bona fide offering of goods or services. The Examiner finds that Registrant has no legitimate right or interest in the domain name and that Complaint has established the second element.
1.2.6.3. that the domain was registered and is being used in bad faith.
The Examiner finds that Registrant has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain, Internet users to Registrant’s online location by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of that location.
After reviewing the Complainant’s submissions, the Examiner determines that
the Complainant has demonstrated all three elements of the URS by a standard of clear and convincing evidence; the Examiner hereby Orders the following domain names be SUSPENDED for the duration of the registration.
Debrett Gordon Lyons, Examiner
Dated: May 13, 2021
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page