Global Name Services LLP v. Jacob Wright
Claim Number: FA2212002023290
Complainant is Global Name Services LLP (“Complainant”), represented by Thomas E. Zutic of DLA Piper LLP (US), District of Columbia. Respondent is Jacob Wright (“Respondent”), USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <cllapiper.com> (“Domain Name”), registered with NameCheap, Inc.
The undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his or her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Nicholas J.T. Smith as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on December 8, 2022; Forum received payment on December 8, 2022.
On December 08, 2022, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <cllapiper.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 December 13, 2022, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of January 3, 2023 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@cllapiper.com. Also on December 13, 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 January 5, 2022, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Nicholas J.T. Smith 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
Complainant is the intellectual property holding company for a global law firm that is located in more than forty countries throughout the Americas, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, and Asia Pacific. Complainant asserts rights in the DLA PIPER mark based upon registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g. Reg. No. 3,214,009, registered February 27, 2007). The <cllapiper.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s DLA PIPER mark as it replaces the letter “d” with the letters “cl” in the otherwise wholly incorporated mark and adds the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com”.
Complainant asserts Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <cllapiper.com> domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name. Respondent is not using the Domain Name in connection with any bona fide offering of goods and services or for any legitimate or fair use. Instead, the Domain Name does not resolve to any active website.
Respondent registered and uses the <cllapiper.com> domain name in bad faith. The Respondent is using the Domain Name to attract Internet users for commercial gain. Additionally, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the DLA PIPER mark prior to registration of the Domain Name.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant holds trademark rights for the DLA PIPER mark. The Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s DLA PIPER mark. Complainant has established that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name and that Respondent registered and has used the Domain Name in bad faith.
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 asserts rights in the DLA PIPER mark through its registration of the mark with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 3,214,009, registered February 27, 2007). Registration of a mark with the USPTO is generally sufficient to establish rights in the mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). 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).”).
The Panel finds that the <cllapiper.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s DLA PIPER mark since it merely replaces the letter “d” with “cl”, creating an obvious visual similarity, and adds the gTLD “.com”. Misspelling a mark by adding, deleting, or exchanging a letter (and adding a gTLD) is not sufficient to avoid confusion between a domain name and a mark. See Omaha Steaks International, Inc. v. DN Manager / Whois-Privacy.Net Ltd, FA 1610122 (Forum July 9, 2015) (finding, “The domain name differs from the mark only in that the domain name substitutes the letter ‘a’ in the word ‘steak’ with the letter ‘c’ and adds the generic Top Level Domain (‘gTLD’) ‘.com.’ These alterations of the mark, made in forming the domain name, do not save it from the realm of confusing similarity under the standards of the Policy.”).); see also Trip Network Inc. v. Alviera, FA 914943 (Forum Mar. 27, 2007) (concluding that the affixation of a gTLD to a domain name is irrelevant to a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis).
The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant alleges that Respondent holds no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. In order for Complainant to succeed under this element, it must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the Domain Name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006) and AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Forum Sept. 25, 2006) (“Complainant must first make a prima facie showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names, which burden is light. If Complainant satisfies its burden, then the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain names.”). The Panel holds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case.
Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name as Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name, nor has Complainant authorized Respondent to use the DLA PIPER mark. Respondent has no relationship, affiliation, connection, endorsement or association with Complainant. WHOIS information can help support a finding that a respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, especially where a privacy service has been engaged. See State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Dale Anderson, FA1504001613011 (Forum May 21, 2015) (concluding that because the WHOIS record lists “Dale Anderson” as the registrant of the disputed domain name, the respondent was not commonly known by the <statefarmforum.com> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)); see also Kohler Co. v. Privacy Service, FA1505001621573 (Forum July 2, 2015) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) where “Privacy Service” was listed as the registrant of the disputed domain name). The WHOIS lists “Jacob Wright” as registrant of record. Coupled with Complainant’s unrebutted assertions as to absence of any affiliation or authorization between the parties, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name in accordance with Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
The Domain Name is presently inactive which by itself does not show a bona fide offering of goods and services. Complainant provides evidence that prior to the commencement of the proceeding the Domain Name resolved to a website that listed the Domain Name for sale for an amount likely in excess of any out-of-pocket costs that could have been incurred by Respondent. Absent any explanation by Respondent for its conduct, such conduct is not by itself a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See AOL Inc. v. YourJungle Privacy Protection Service aka Whois Agent, FA1312001533324 (Forum Jan. 17, 2014) (“Respondent has offered the <aoljobsweek.com> domain name for sale to the general public, which demonstrates that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).”);
The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
The Panel finds on the balance of probabilities that, at the time Respondent registered the Domain Name, April 23, 2020, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s DLA PIPER mark. The law firm DLA Piper has a significant global reputation in the DLA PIPER mark and has used it extensively, including from its website at <www.dlapiper.com>. Furthermore Respondent has not provided an explanation why it registered a domain name that consists of a misspelling of the coined DLA PIPER mark (and offered it for sale) other than to take advantage of Complainant’s reputation in the DLA PIPER mark. In the absence of rights or legitimate interests of its own this demonstrates registration in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Respondent has, without alternative explanation (or other active use), registered a domain name that is similar to the well-known DLA PIPER mark and offered it for sale for an amount exceeding its out-of-pocket costs. An offer to sell a disputed domain name may be evidence of bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(i). See loanDepot.com, LLC v. sm goo, FA 1786848 (Forum June 12, 2018) (finding that where a respondent’s only employment of a substantially identical domain name is to attempt to sell the name, there exist sufficient grounds to find the respondent registered and used the name in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(i)). In the present case, given the nature of the Domain Name, the manner in which it has been used, and the lack of alternative explanation provided by Respondent, the Panel finds that the Respondent registered and used the Domain Name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(i).
The Panel finds 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 <cllapiper.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Nicholas J.T. Smith, Panelist
Dated: January 6, 2023
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page