Robert Half International Inc. v. Yang Zhi Chao
Claim Number: FA2111001972606
Complainant is Robert Half International Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Foley & Lardner LLP, Illinois, USA. Respondent is Yang Zhi Chao (“Respondent”), China.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <robetrhalf.com>, <roberthaalf.com>, <roberthaf.com>, <roberthlaf.com>, <robertjalf.com>, <roberhtalf.com>, <roberrhalf.com>, <robertgalf.com>, <r0berthalf.com>, <rberthalf.com>, <rboerthalf.com>, <eoberthalf.com>, <oberthalf.com>, <comroberthalf.com>, <riberthalf.com>, <robeethalf.com>, <rpberthalf.com>, <rroberthalf.com>, <robeerthalf.com>, <roberthald.com>, <roverthalf.com>, <robwrthalf.com>, <roebrthalf.com>, <ronerthalf.com>, <rooberthalf.com>, <robetthalf.com>, <robrrthalf.com>, <roberyhalf.com>, and <toberthalf.com>, registered with DNSPod, Inc., (the “Domain Names”).
PANEL
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.
Alan L. Limbury, as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on November 9, 2021. The Forum received payment on November 9, 2021. The Complaint was received in English.
On November 12, 2021, DNSPod, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <robetrhalf.com>, <roberthaalf.com>, <roberthaf.com>, <roberthlaf.com>, <robertjalf.com>, <roberhtalf.com>, <roberrhalf.com>, <robertgalf.com>, <r0berthalf.com>, <rberthalf.com>, <rboerthalf.com>, <eoberthalf.com>, <oberthalf.com>, <comroberthalf.com>, <riberthalf.com>, <robeethalf.com>, <rpberthalf.com>, <rroberthalf.com>, <robeerthalf.com>, <roberthald.com>, <roverthalf.com>, <robwrthalf.com>, <roebrthalf.com>, <ronerthalf.com>, <rooberthalf.com>, <robetthalf.com>, <robrrthalf.com>, <roberyhalf.com>, and <toberthalf.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, which is in Chinese, 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 November 15, 2021, the Forum served the English language Complaint and all Annexes, including an English and Chinese language Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of December 6, 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@robetrhalf.com, postmaster@roberthaalf.com, postmaster@roberthaf.com, postmaster@roberthlaf.com, postmaster@robertjalf.com, postmaster@roberhtalf.com, postmaster@roberrhalf.com, postmaster@robertgalf.com, postmaster@r0berthalf.com, postmaster@rberthalf.com, postmaster@rboerthalf.com, postmaster@eoberthalf.com, postmaster@oberthalf.com, postmaster@comroberthalf.com, postmaster@riberthalf.com, postmaster@robeethalf.com, postmaster@rpberthalf.com, postmaster@rroberthalf.com, postmaster@robeerthalf.com, postmaster@roberthald.com, postmaster@roverthalf.com, postmaster@robwrthalf.com, postmaster@roebrthalf.com, postmaster@ronerthalf.com, postmaster@rooberthalf.com, postmaster@robetthalf.com, postmaster@robrrthalf.com, postmaster@roberyhalf.com, postmaster@toberthalf.com. Also on November 15, 2021, the English and Chinese language Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail addresses served and the deadline for a Response, were 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 December 14, 2021, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Alan L. Limbury 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 PROCEEDINGS
As noted, the DNSPod, Inc. registration agreement is in Chinese. Pursuant to Rule 11(a), the language of the proceeding in relation to the Domain Names shall be Chinese unless otherwise determined by the Panel, having regard to the circumstances of the proceeding.
Complainant submits that because Respondent is conversant and proficient in English, the proceeding should be conducted in English. The Domain Names resolve to webpages that display hyperlinks that are entirely in English. Complainant claims the Domain Names target the well-known English-language trademark, ROBERT HALF, suggesting that Respondent is at least proficient in the English language. Further, Complainant is not conversant nor proficient in the Chinese language and would require delay and unnecessary costs to translate the document.
In the absence of any Response, these circumstances satisfy the Panel that Respondent is likely to be proficient in English and that there would be no undue prejudice to Respondent if English were the language of the proceeding.
Further, pursuant to Rule 11(a), the Panel determines that the language requirement has been satisfied through the English and Chinese language Written Notice of the Complaint and, absent a Response, determines that the remainder of the proceedings may be conducted in English.
A. Complainant
Founded in 1948, Complainant, Robert Half International Inc., is one of the world’s largest specialized employment staffing firms. Complainant has rights in the ROBERT HALF mark based upon numerous registrations worldwide, including with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”). All the Domain Names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark.
Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names because Respondent is not commonly known by any of the Domain Names and is not authorized to use Complainant’s ROBERT HALF mark. Respondent fails to use the Domain Names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use because they all resolve to webpages that feature generic hyperlinks to third parties.
Respondent has registered the Domain Names in bad faith with actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the ROBERT HALF mark. Respondent uses the confusingly similar and typosquatted Domain Names in an attempt to pass itself and the Domain Names off as Complainant or as officially sponsored by or connected with Complainant. This is likely to cause confusion and disrupt Complainant’s business.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant has established all the elements entitling it to relief.
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”).
Complainant has shown that it has rights in the ROBERT HALF mark based upon many registrations, including with the USPTO (e.g., 1,156,612, registered June 2, 1981). All but one of the Domain Names comprise typosquatted versions of the entire mark, differing by only a single letter, and the inconsequential “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”), which may be ignored. The <comroberthalf.com> domain name incorporates the entire mark, preceded by the generic term “com”, which is insufficient to distinguish the domain name from the mark, followed by the “.com” gTLD.
The Panel finds all the Domain Names to be confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark.
Complainant has established this element.
(i) before any notice to Respondent of the dispute, the use by Respondent of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the Domain Names or names corresponding to the Domain Names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or
(ii) Respondent (as an individual, business or other organization) has been commonly known by the Domain Names, even if Respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
(iii) Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Names, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert customers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.
These circumstances, together with Complainant’s assertions, are sufficient to constitute a prima facie showing of absence of rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Names on the part of Respondent. The evidentiary burden therefore shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names. See Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014). Respondent has made no attempt to do so.
The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Names.
Complainant has established this element.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out four illustrative circumstances, which, though not exclusive, shall be evidence of the registration and use of the Domain Names in bad faith for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, including:
(iii) Respondent has registered the Domain Names primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) by using the Domain Names, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on its website or location.
The circumstances set out above in relation to the second element satisfy the Panel that Respondent was fully aware of Complainant’s very well-known ROBERT HALF mark when Respondent registered the Domain Names and did so primarily for the purpose of disrupting Complainant’s business. Further, that Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s websites, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s websites and of the services promoted on those websites. These findings demonstrate registration and use in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv).
Further, all the Domain Names except <comroberthalf.com> are clearly a deliberately typosquatted version of the Complainant’s mark, designed to mislead Internet users into believing they are accessing Complainant’s website at “www.roberthalf.com”. This alone demonstrates bad faith registration and use.
Complainant has established this element.
DECISION
Complainant having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <robetrhalf.com>, <roberthaalf.com>, <roberthaf.com>, <roberthlaf.com>, <robertjalf.com>, <roberhtalf.com>, <roberrhalf.com>, <robertgalf.com>, <r0berthalf.com>, <rberthalf.com>, <rboerthalf.com>, <eoberthalf.com>, <oberthalf.com>, <comroberthalf.com>, <riberthalf.com>, <robeethalf.com>, <rpberthalf.com>, <rroberthalf.com>, <robeerthalf.com>, <roberthald.com>, <roverthalf.com>, <robwrthalf.com>, <roebrthalf.com>, <ronerthalf.com>, <rooberthalf.com>, <robetthalf.com>, <robrrthalf.com>, <roberyhalf.com>, and <toberthalf.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Alan L. Limbury, Panelist
Dated: December 15, 2021
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page