Carahsoft Technology Corp. v. James Walton James Walton
Claim Number: FA2201001981707
Complainant is Carahsoft Technology Corp. (“Complainant”), represented by Adam D. Mandell of Millen, White, Zelano & Branigan, P.C., Virginia, USA. Respondent is James Walton James Walton (“Respondent”), California, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <carahsort.com>, registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com.
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 January 24, 2022. The Forum received payment on January 24, 2022.
On January 26, 2022, PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <carahsort.com> domain name is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com 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 January 28, 2022, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 17, 2022 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@carahsort.com. Also on January 28, 2022, 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 February 22, 2022, 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 name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant provides information regarding technology products, services and training to federal, state and local governments, educational institutions and prime contractors. Complainant has rights in the CARAHSOFT mark through registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”). Respondent’s <carahsort.com> domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s CARAHSOFT mark.
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. Complainant has not authorized or licensed Respondent to use the CARAHSOFT mark, nor is Respondent commonly known by the domain name. Further, Respondent is not using the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use as the domain name does not resolve to an active website.
Respondent registered and uses the <carahsort.com> domain name in bad faith. Respondent may attempt to attract users for commercial gain by passing himself off as Complainant via email. Further, Respondent engages in typosquatting, intentionally misspelling Complainant’s mark to confuse users. The domain name does not resolve to an active website.
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 CARAHSOFT mark through registration of the mark with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 3,685,627, registered on September 22, 2009). The Panel finds Respondent’s <carahsort.com> domain name to be virtually identical and confusingly similar to Complainant’s CARAHSOFT mark, as it merely replaces the letter “f” with the letter “r”, which does nothing to distinguish the domain name from the mark, and adds the inconsequential “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”), which may be ignored.
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 name or a name corresponding to the domain name 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 name, 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 name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert customers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.
The <carahsort.com> domain name was registered on September 20, 2021, many years after Complainant has shown that its CARAHSOFT mark had become distinctive and very well-known. It does not resolve to an active website.
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 name on the part of Respondent. The evidentiary burden therefore shifts to Respondent to show that he does have rights or legitimate interests in the <carahsort.com> domain name. See JUUL Labs, Inc. v. Dryx Emerson / KMF Events LTD, FA1906001849706 (Forum July 17, 2019).
Respondent has made no attempt to do so.
The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name.
Complainant has established this element.
The four illustrative circumstances set out in paragraph 4(b) of the Policy as evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) are not exclusive.
In the present case, the <carahsort.com> domain name is clearly a deliberately typosquatted version of Complainant’s very well-known and distinctive CARAHSOFT mark. There is no plausible explanation for the registration of the domain name other than to take advantage of the goodwill of Complainant. See Yahoo! Inc. and GeoCities v. Cupcakes, Cupcake City, Cupcake Confidential, Cupcake-Party, Cupcake Parade, and John Zuccarini, Case No. D2000-0777 (WIPO Oct. 2, 2000). Nor is there any plausible good faith use to which the passively held domain name may be put. See Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, Case No. D2000-0003, (WIPO February 18, 2000).
Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the domain name in bad faith.
Complainant has established this element.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <carahsort.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Alan L. Limbury, Panelist
Dated: February 24, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page