Seed Intellectual Property Law Group LLP v. Kristin Mork
Claim Number: FA2105001944556
Complainant is Seed Intellectual Property Law Group LLP (“Complainant”), represented by Syed M. Abedi of Seed Intellectual Property Law Group LLP, Washington, USA. Respondent is Kristin Mork (“Respondent”), Illinois, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <sedlp.com>, registered with Google 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.
Petter Rindforth as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on May 10, 2021; the Forum received payment on May 10, 2021.
On May 11, 2021, Google LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <sedlp.com> domain name is registered with Google LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Google LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Google 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 May 12, 2021, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of June 1, 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@sedlp.com. Also on May 12, 2021, 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 June 2, 2021, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Petter Rindforth 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
The Complainant is the owner of the SEED IP trademark registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 6,050,602, registered May 12, 2020). The disputed domain name, <sedlp.com>, is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s SEED IP mark because it merely omits one letter “e” and changes the letter “i” into a letter “L”, and adding the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) to form the domain name.
Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <sedlp.com> domain name because Respondent is not commonly known by the <sedlp.com> domain name nor has Respondent received authorization to use Complainant’s SEED IP trademark. Respondent is not using the <sedlp.com> in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services nor for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use because Respondent is using the <sedlp.com> domain name to engage in a phishing scheme requesting financial information from Complainant’s clients via email.
Respondent registered and uses the <sedlp.com> domain name in bad faith. Respondent uses the disputed domain name to pass off as Complainant as part of an email phishing scheme. Additionally, Respondent engages in typosquatting.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
The Complainant is the owner of the following U.S. trademark registrations:
No. 6,056,053 SEED IP (fig), registered May 19, 2020 for services in class 45; and
No. 6,050,602 SEED IP (word), registered May 12, 2020 for services in class 45.
The disputed domain name <sedlp.com> was registered on February 2, 2021.
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 Complainant claims rights in the SEED IP trademark through its registration of the trademark with the USPTO. Regsitration of a trademark with the USPTO is sufficient to show that Complainant has rights in that trademark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Liberty Global Logistics, LLC v. damilola emmanuel / tovary services limited, FA 1738536 (Forum Aug. 4, 2017) (stating, “Registration of a mark with the USPTO sufficiently establishes the required rights in the mark for purposes of the Policy.”). Complainant provides copies of its registration certificates with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 6,050,602, registered on May 12, 2020). Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant has established rights in its SEED IP trademark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant argues that the <sedlp.com> domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark because it incorporates Complainant’s SEED IP trademark, but for the omission of the letter “e” and changing the letter “i” to the lowercase letter “L”, and adding the “.com” gTLD to form the domain name. A domain name may be found to be identical or confusingly similar to a complainant’s trademark, under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), despite the omission and changes of letters in a complainant’s trademark and the addition of a gTLD. See Twitch Interactive, Inc. v. zhang qin, FA 1626511 (Forum Aug. 4, 2015) (finding, “The relevant comparison then resolves to the trademark, TWITCH, with the term, ‘titch,’ which, as can be readily seen, merely removes the letter ‘w’ from the trademark. In spite of that omission the compared integers remain visually and aurally very similar and so Panel finds them to be confusingly similar for the purposes of the Policy.”). Here, the Panel notes that the lowercase version of the letter “L” is visually very similar to the letter “i”, and the absence of one letter “e” - compared to the word SEED – makes therefore no significant difference. Therefore, the Panel finds that the <sedlp.com> domain name is at least confusingly similar to Complainant’s SEED IP trademark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Once the Complainant makes a prima facie case in support of its allegations in respect of the second element of the Policy, the burden shifts to the Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Forum Sept. 25, 2006) (“Complainant must first make a prima facie showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names, which burden is light. If Complainant satisfies its burden, then the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain names.”); see also Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006) (holding that the complainant must first make a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under UDRP ¶ 4(a)(ii) before the burden shifts to the respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in a domain name).
The Complainant argues that Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <sedlp.com> domain name because Respondent is not commonly known by the <sedlp.com> domain name, nor has Respondent received authorization from Complainant to use Complainant’s SEED IP trademark. Evidence that a respondent is not commonly known by a disputed domain name, under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), may be found when identifying WHOIS information is not relevant to the domain name and where a respondent did not obtain authorization by a complainant to use a complainant’s trademark. See State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Dale Anderson, FA1504001613011 (Forum May 21, 2015) (concluding that because the WHOIS record lists “Dale Anderson” as the registrant of the disputed domain name, the respondent was not commonly known by the <statefarmforum.com> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)); see also Alaska Air Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines v. Song Bin, FA1408001574905 (Forum Sept. 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). Here, the WHOIS information provided by the registrar identifies the registrant as “Kristin Mork.” Additionally, Complainant asserts that Respondent is not licensed or otherwise permitted to use Complainant’s SEED IP trademark. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the <sedlp.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
Complainant argues that Respondent is not using the <sedlp.com> domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, because Respondent uses the <sedlp.com> domain name in furtherance of a phishing scheme. A domain name may be found to not be used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services nor for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii), where a respondent uses a domain name to impersonate a complainant and defraud its clients/customers. See Cubist Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Gregory Stea, FA1403001550388 (Forum May 5, 2014) (“Respondent is using the domain name in emails to various IT hardware suppliers in an attempt to impersonate Complainant and defraud its customers. The domain name also resolved to a website similar to Complainant's website. The Panel found that such actions precluded a bona fide offer or fair use.”). In this case, Complainant provides a screenshot of a correspondence received from a client of Complainant where Respondent requested financial information from the client. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not using the <sedlp.com> domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services nor for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii).
The Complainant argues that Respondent registered and uses the <sedlp.com> domain name in bad faith because Respondent is using the <sedlp.com> domain name to pass off as Complainant in furtherance of a phishing scheme. The use of a disputed domain name to pass off as a complainant via email in furtherance of a phishing scheme is evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). 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). As noted above, Complainant provides evidence showing that Respondent sent an email to a client posing as Complainant and requesting that the client submit financial information. Therefore, the Panel clearly finds that Respondent registered and uses the <sedlp.com> domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
Complainant further argues that Respondent registered and uses the <sedlp.com> domain name in bad faith because Respondent typosquatted Complainant’s trademark in the <sedlp.com> domain name. Typosquatting itself is evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Cost Plus Management Services, Inc. v. xushuaiwei, FA 1800036 (Forum Sept. 7, 2018) (“Typosquatting itself is evidence of relevant bad faith registration and use.”). Complainant’s trademark is SEED IP, while the <sedlp.com> domain name omits a letter “e” and changes the letter “i” into a letter “L”. Complainant contends both of these alternations in the domain name create a typosquatted version of Complainant’s SEED IP trademark. The Panel agrees on that conclusion, and finds bad faith per 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 <sedlp.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Petter Rindforth, Panelist
Dated: June 10, 2021
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page