Robert Half International Inc. v. Mjoalms / Cas Jon / Manda Tanda
Claim Number: FA2209002011487
Complainant is Robert Half International Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Robert Weisbein of Foley & Lardner LLP, New York, USA. Respondent is Mjoalms / Cas Jon / Manda Tanda (“Respondent”), Utah, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <roberthalfves.com> and <robhalfs-team.com>, registered with NameCheap, Inc. and NameSilo, LLC.
The undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on September 9, 2022; Forum received payment on September 9, 2022.
On September 12, 2022, NameCheap, Inc. and NameSilo, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <roberthalfves.com> and <robhalfs-team.com> domain names are registered with NameCheap, Inc. and NameSilo, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. NameCheap, Inc. and NameSilo, LLC have verified that Respondent is bound by the NameCheap, Inc. and NameSilo, LLC registration agreements and have 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 19, 2022, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of October 11, 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@roberthalfves.com, postmaster@robhalfs-team.com. Also on September 19, 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, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On October 19, 2022, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that 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, 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: MULITPLE RESPODNENTS
Complainant alleges that the disputed domain names are effectively controlled by the same person and/or entity, operating under several aliases. Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”) provides that a “complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder.” Complainant contends that the disputed domain names have been used together to perpetrate a phishing scheme, and are thus under common control. In the absence of any contention to the contrary, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are commonly controlled by a single Respondent using multiple aliases.
A. Complainant
1. Respondent’s <roberthalfves.com> and <robhalfs-team.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s ROBERT HALF mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <roberthalfves.com> and <robhalfs-team.com> domain names.
3. Respondent registered and uses the <roberthalfves.com> and <robhalfs-team.com> domain names in bad faith.
B. Respondent did not file a Response.
Complainant, Robert Half International Inc., offers specialized employment staffing services and holds a registration for the ROBERT HALF mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 1,156,612 registered June 2, 1981).
Respondent registered the <roberthalfves.com> domain name on July 8, 2022, and the <robhalfs-team.com> domain name on August 30, 2022, and uses them to display pay-per-click links and to conduct a 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 Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the ROBERT HALF mark based upon the registration of the mark with the USPTO. See Brooks Sports, Inc. v. Joyce Cheadle, FA 1819065 (Forum Dec. 28, 2018) (finding that Complainant’s registration of the BROOKS mark with the USPTO sufficiently conferred its rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”)
Respondent’s <roberthalfves.com> domain name contains the ROBERT HALF mark and simply adds the letters “ves” and the “.com” gTLD. The <robhalfs-team.com> domain name contains an abbreviated version of the ROBERT HALF mark, adds the letter “s”, a hyphen, the word “team”, and the “.com” gTLD. The addition or omission of letters and the addition of a gTLD fail to sufficiently distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Bittrex, Inc. v. Sergey Valerievich Kireev / Kireev, FA 1784651 (Forum June 5, 2018) (holding that the domain name consists of the BITTREX mark and adds “the letters ‘btc’ and the gTLD .com which do not distinguish the Domain Name from Complainant’s mark.”); see also Hallelujah Acres, Inc. v. Manila Indus., Inc., FA 805029 (Forum Nov. 15, 2006) (holding that the respondent’s <hacrs.com> domain name was confusingly similar to the complainant’s HACRES mark because it omitted the letter “e” from the mark and added the generic top-level domain “.com”). The addition of a hyphen and a generic term also fails to sufficiently distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). 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).”). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent’s <roberthalfves.com> and <robhalfs-team.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s ROBERT HALF mark.
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Once Complainant makes a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)); see also Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) (“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”).
Complainant contends that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names since Respondent is not commonly known by the domain names and Complainant has not authorized or licensed to Respondent any rights in the ROBERT HALF mark. The WHOIS information for the disputed domain names lists the registrants as “Mjoalms / Cas Jon” and “Manda Tanda”. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names, and thus has no rights under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Guardair Corporation v. Pablo Palermo, FA1407001571060 (Forum Aug. 28, 2014) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <guardair.com> domain name according to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), as the WHOIS information lists “Pablo Palermo” as registrant of the disputed domain name); see also Google LLC v. Bhawana Chandel / Admission Virus, FA 1799694 (Forum Sep. 4, 2018) (concluding that Respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name where “the WHOIS of record identifies the Respondent as “Bhawana Chandel,” and no information in the record shows that Respondent was authorized to use Complainant’s mark in any way.”)
Complainant argues that Respondent fails to use the for a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use as the <roberthalfves.com> domain name resolves to with links to services similar to those offered by Complainant. Using a disputed domain name to redirect users to competing services is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See The Toronto-Dominion Bank v. GEORGE WASHERE, FA 1785311 (Forum June 7, 2018) (“Respondent’s confusingly similar <esecuretdbank.com> domain name references a website displaying links to competing third parties as well as links to Complainant and various unrelated third parties. Using the domain name in this manner shows 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).”) Complainant provides evidence showing that the <roberthalfves.com> domain name resolves to a page displaying pay-per-click third party links. The Panel finds that Respondent fails to use the <roberthalfves.com> domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).
Complainant alleges that Respondent uses the disputed domain names to send fraudulent emails and solicit sensitive information, further demonstrating a lack of rights and legitimate interests in the domain names. See Wells Fargo & Co. v. WhoisGuard, FA 1103650 (Forum Dec. 13, 2007) (“There is no dispute that respondent previously used the disputed domain name to obtain personal and financial information from Internet customers of complainant. This fraudulent use [is] known as ‘phishing’”); see also Allianz of Am. Corp. v. Bond, FA 690796 (Forum June 12, 2006) (holding that the respondent’s use of the <allianzcorp.biz> domain name to fraudulently acquire the personal and financial information of Internet users seeking Complainant’s financial services was not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)). Complainant provides evidence of Respondent’s use of Complainant’s mark and emails incorporating the disputed domain names to impersonate Complainant’s employee and solicit sensitive information on false pretenses. The Panel finds that this is further evidence that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain names for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Complainant argues that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain names in bad faith because Respondent disrupts Complainant’s business. Using a disputed domain name to redirect consumers to competing goods or services evinces bad faith disruption of a complainant’s business under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See block.one v. Negalize Interactive Things, FA 1798280 (Forum Aug. 21, 2018) (“Offering links to competing products or services can demonstrate bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) where a respondent registers a domain name that is confusingly similar to the mark of another.”) Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain names in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).
Complainant also argues that, because Respondent is using the disputed domain names to impersonate Complainant’s employee and solicit sensitive information from internet users, Respondent has engaged in phishing and thus demonstrated bad faith registration and use. Phishing may in and of itself be considered evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Zoetis Inc. and Zoetis Services LLC v. VistaPrint Technologies Ltd, FA1506001623601 (Forum July 14, 2015) (“Respondent’s attempt to use the <zoietis.com> domain name to phish for personal information in fraudulent emails also constitutes bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”). Thus, the finds further bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Complainant contends that, in light of the fame and notoriety of Complainant's ROBERT HALF mark, it is inconceivable that Respondent could have registered the disputed domain names without knowledge of Complainant's rights in the mark. The Panel agrees, also noting that Respondent uses the disputed domain names to impersonate Complainant, and finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the ROBERT HALF mark when it registered the disputed domain names, showing bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See 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).
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied 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 <roberthalfves.com> and <robhalfs-team.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist
Dated: October 20, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page