Robert Half International Inc. v. asd asd
Claim Number: FA2212002022704
Complainant is Robert Half International Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Robert Weisbein of Foley & Lardner LLP, New York, USA. Respondent is asd asd (“Respondent”), Netherlands.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <roberthalf.com.co>, registered with NameCheap, Inc..
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 December 5, 2022; Forum received payment on December 5, 2022.
On December 5, 2022, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <roberthalf.com.co> 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 December 8, 2022, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of December 28, 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@roberthalf.com.co. Also on December 8, 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 December 29, 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 name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
1. Respondent’s <roberthalf.com.co> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ROBERT HALF mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <roberthalf.com.co> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and uses the <roberthalf.com.co> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent did not file a Response.
The Complainant, Robert Half International Inc., is one of the world’s largest specialized employment staffing agencies. Complainant holds a registration for the ROBERT HALF mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 1,156,612, registered June 2, 1981).
Respondent registered the <roberthalf.com.co> domain name on September 23, 2022, and uses it to redirect to Complainant’s official website.
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 on registration with the USPTO. See DIRECTV, LLC v. The Pearline Group, FA 1818749 (Forum Dec. 30, 2018) (“Complainant’s ownership of a USPTO registration for DIRECTV demonstrate its rights in such mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”)
Respondent’s <roberthalf.com.co> domain name uses the entire ROBERT HALF mark and simply adds “.com” gTLD and the “.co” ccTLD. These changes do not distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Longo Brothers Fruit Markets Inc. v. John Obeye / DOMAIN MAY BE FOR SALE, CHECK AFTERNIC.COM, FA 1734634 (Forum July 17, 2017) (“[O]f course it is well established in prior UDRP cases that the addition of a ‘.com’ suffix is irrelevant when determining if a disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark.”); see also CloudFlare, Inc. v. [Registrant], FA 1624251 (Forum Aug. 1, 2015) (holding, “The inclusion of a ccTLD does not alleviate the similarity between a mark and a disputed domain name as per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent’s <roberthalf.com.co> domain name is 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 has no rights or legitimate interests in the <roberthalf.com.co> domain name, as Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name. Respondent is not authorized to use the ROBERT HALF mark. The WHOIS information of record names “asd asd” as the registrant of the disputed domain name. Therefore, the Panel find Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and thus has no rights under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Suzen Khan / Nancy Jain / Andrew Stanzy, FA 1741129 (Forum Aug. 16, 2017) (finding that respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names when the identifying information provided by WHOIS was unrelated to the domain names or respondent’s use of the same).
Complainant asserts that Respondent fails to use the <roberthalf.com.co> domain name for a bona fide offering of goods and services or a legitimate or fair use because the disputed domain name redirects to Complainant’s official website. Using a disputed domain name to resolve to a complainant’s website is not a bona fide offering of goods and services or a legitimate or fair use per Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Dell Inc. v. Devesh Tyagi, FA 1785301 (Forum June 2, 2018) (“Respondent replicates Complainant’s website and displays Complainant’s products. The Panel finds that this use is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) & (iii).”) Complainant provides screenshot evidence showing that the disputed domain name resolves to Complainant’s website. The Panel finds that this is not a bona fide offering of goods and services or a legitimate or fair use, and thus Respondent has no rights under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Complainant contends that Respondent registered the <roberthalf.com.co> domain name in bad faith because the domain name redirects to Complainant’s official website. The Panel agrees and finds that Respondent registered and uses the <roberthalf.com.co> domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See LifeLock v. Sparta Trading S.A., FA1408001577367 (Forum Oct. 14, 2014) (“Respondent is using the disputed domain name to redirect Internet users to Complainant’s website, which is a violation of its affiliate agreement with Complainant. Therefore, Respondent is using the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”)
Complainant argues that Respondent registered the <roberthalf.com.co> domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the ROBERT HALF mark based on the Complainant’s established notoriety and goodwill in the worldwide marketplace beginning in 1948. The Panel agrees and finds bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Orbitz Worldwide, LLC v. Domain Librarian, FA 1535826 (Forum Feb. 6, 2014) (“The Panel notes that although the UDRP does not recognize ‘constructive notice’ as sufficient grounds for finding Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) bad faith, the Panel here finds actual knowledge through the name used for the domain and the use made of it.”)
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 <roberthalf.com.co> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist
Dated: December 30, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page