Greystar Worldwide, LLC v. jerry pegram
Claim Number: FA2109001966538
Complainant is Greystar Worldwide, LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Jacob S. Wharton of Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP, North Carolina, USA. Respondent is jerry pegram (“Respondent”), North Carolina, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <greystar-aptsrental.com>, registered with 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 Panelist in this proceeding.
Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on September 27, 2021; the Forum received payment on September 27, 2021.
On Sep 28, 2021, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <greystar-aptsrental.com> domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameCheap, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameCheap, 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 September 28, 2021, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of October 18, 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@greystar-aptsrental.com. Also on September 28, 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 October 25, 2021, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Paul M. DeCicco 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 contends as follows:
Complainant is a housing related company and apartment manager.
Complainant has rights in the GREYSTAR mark through its registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”).
Respondent’s <greystaraptsrental.com> domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s GREYSTAR mark as it incorporates the mark in its entirety and adds the words “apts rental”, along with the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).
Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <greystaraptsrental.com> domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name, nor has Complainant authorized or licensed Respondent to use its GREYSTAR mark in the <greystaraptsrental.com> domain name. Respondent does not use the domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services, nor any legitimate noncommercial or fair use, but instead uses the domain name to pass itself off as Complainant in emails. Email sent from <greystaraptsrental.com> references Greystar’s <greystar.com> domain name and is used to facilitate a scam whereby Respondent, posing as a senior manager of Complainant’s business, deceives third parties into completing an apartment sub-lease application and sending a security deposit and first month’s rent per Respondent’s instructions.
Respondent registered and uses the <greystaraptsrental.com> domain name in bad faith. Respondent disrupts Complainant’s business for commercial gain by passing off as Complainant in email exchanges and defrauding third parties. Respondent had knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the GREYSTAR mark at the time it registered the domain name.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant has rights in the GREYSTAR trademark.
Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and had not been authorized to use Complainant’s trademark in any capacity.
Respondent registered the at‑issue domain name after Complainant acquired rights in GREYSTAR trademark.
Respondent uses the <greystaraptsrental.com> domain name to facilitate an email phishing scheme.
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 at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.
Complainant’s ownership of a USPTO trademark registration for GREYSTAR demonstrates Complainant’s rights in such mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(I). See Microsoft Corp. v. Burkes, FA 652743 (Forum Apr. 17, 2006) (“Complainant has established rights in the MICROSOFT mark through registration of the mark with the USPTO.”).
The at-issue domain name consists of Complainant’s GREYSTAR trademark followed by the suggestive term “apt rental” (the abbreviation “apt” for “apartment” along with the word “rental”) with all followed by the top level domain name “.com” to complete the domain name. The differences between the <greystaraptsrental.com> domain name and Complainant’s GREYSTAR trademark are insufficient to distinguish the domain name from Complainant’s trademark for the purposes of the Policy. Therefore, the Panel finds that pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) Respondent’s <greystaraptsrental.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s GREYSTAR trademark. See Ant Small and Micro Financial Services Group Co., Ltd. v. Ant Fin, FA 1759326 (Forum Jan. 2, 2018) (“Respondent’s <antfinancial-investorrelations.com> Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ANT FINANCIAL mark. It incorporates the mark entirely. It adds a hyphen, the descriptive terms “investor relations,” and the “.com” gTLD, but these additions are insufficient to distinguish the Domain name from complainant’s mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”).
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. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006). Since Respondent failed to respond, Complainant’s prima facie showing acts conclusively.
Respondent lacks both rights and legitimate interests in respect of the confusingly similar <greystaraptsrental.com> domain name. Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant’s trademark in any capacity and, as discussed below, there are no Policy ¶ 4(c) circumstances from which the Panel might find that Respondent has rights or interests in respect of the at‑issue 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 at-issue domain name identifies the domain name’s registrant as “jerry pegram” and the record before the Panel contains no evidence that otherwise tends to show that Respondent is commonly known by the <greystaraptsrental.com> domain name. The Panel therefore concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Coppertown Drive-Thru Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089 (Forum July 17, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <coppertown.com> domain name where there was no evidence in the record, including the WHOIS information, suggesting that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name).
Next, Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to host an email address in support of a phishing scheme. In such scheme, Respondent poses as one of Complainant’s senior managers via email sent from Respondent’s <greystaraptsrental.com> domain name. The email attempts to have third parties complete an apartment sub-lease application and then send a security deposit and the first month’s rent ostensibly to Respondent. Clearly, Respondent’s duplicitous use of the at-issue domain name as discussed above supports neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a non-commercial or fair use of the domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(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, Microsoft Corporation v. Terrence Green / Whois Agent / Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc., FA 1661030 (Forum Apr. 4, 2016) (finding the respondent’s use of the disputed domain names to send fraudulent emails purportedly from agents of complainant to be neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)).
Given the forgoing, Complainant satisfies its initial burden and conclusively demonstrates Respondent’s lack of rights and lack of interests in respect of the at-issue domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Respondent’s <greystaraptsrental.com> domain name was registered and used in bad faith. As discussed below without limitation, bad faith circumstances are present which compel the Panel to conclude that Respondent acted in bad faith pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
First and as discussed above regarding rights and legitimate interest, Respondent’s confusingly similar <greystaraptsrental.com> domain name is used to facilitate an email phishing scheme whereby Respondent impersonates Complainant via deceptive email in furtherance of fraud. Respondent’s use of the confusingly similar <greystaraptsrental.com> domain name to pass itself off as Complainant and trick third parties into giving up private data as well as funds disrupts Complainant’s business and demonstrates Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the <greystaraptsrental.com> domain name pursuant to 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)”).
Additionally, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the GREYSTAR mark when it registered and used the at-issue domain name. Respondent’s actual knowledge is evident from the notoriety of Complainant’s GREYSTAR trademark and from Respondent’s use of the <greystaraptsrental.com> domain name to attempt to impersonate Complainant through fraudulent email as discussed elsewhere herein. Respondent’s registration and use of the confusingly similar domain name with knowledge of Complainant’s trademark rights in such domain name further shows Respondent’s bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name); 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).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <greystar-aptsrental.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist
Dated: October 26, 2021
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page