Rocket Lawyer Incorporated v. Milen Radumilo
Claim Number: FA2302002031827
Complainant is Rocket Lawyer Incorporated ("Complainant"), United States, represented by Josh Gerben of Gerben Perrott PLLC, United States. Respondent is Milen Radumilo ("Respondent"), Romania.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <therocketlawyer.com>, registered with Namesnap LLC.
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.
David E. Sorkin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 14, 2023; Forum received payment on February 14, 2023.
On February 16, 2023, Namesnap LLC confirmed by email to Forum that the <therocketlawyer.com> domain name is registered with Namesnap LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Namesnap LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Namesnap LLC 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 February 17, 2023, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 9, 2023 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via email to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@therocketlawyer.com. Also on February 17, 2023, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the email 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 March 30, 2023, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed David E. Sorkin 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 has used the ROCKET LAWYER mark and the domain name <rocketlawyer.com> in connection with legal referrals, software, and related services since 2006. Complainant owns two United States trademark registrations for ROCKET LAWYER in standard character form.
Respondent registered the disputed domain name <therocketlawyer.com> in January 2023. Complainant states that attempts to access the corresponding website result in multiple security warnings, and suggests that it is being used to disseminate malware or in connection with a phishing scheme. Complainant notes that Respondent has been a party to more than 100 Forum proceedings resulting in decisions adverse to Respondent. Complainant states that Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name and has not been authorized to use Complainant's mark.
Complainant contends on the above grounds that the disputed domain name <therocketlawyer.com> is confusingly similar to its ROCKET LAWYER mark; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used 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 Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, § 4.3 (3d ed. 2017), available at http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (dismissing complaint where complainant failed to "produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations").
The disputed domain name <therocketlawyer.com> incorporates Complainant's registered ROCKET LAWYER trademark, omitting the space and adding the article "the" and the ".com" top-level domain. These alterations do not substantially diminish the similarity between the domain name and Complainant's mark. See, e.g., Diet Center Worldwide, Inc. v. Domains By Proxy, LLC / Sheri Zillioux, D2022-0246 (WIPO Aug. 3, 2022) (finding <thedietcenter.com> confusingly similar to DIET CENTER); Rocket Lawyer Inc. v. True Shopping, FA 1976510 (Forum Jan. 11, 2022) (finding <r0cketlawyer.com> confusingly similar to ROCKET LAWYER). The Panel considers the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights.
Under the Policy, the Complainant must first make a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and then the burden shifts to the Respondent to come forward with concrete evidence of such rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Productions, Inc. v. Entertainment Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006).
The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's registered mark without authorization. It is unclear whether Respondent is making any active use of the domain name, although it appears likely that any such use involves malware dissemination or phishing. Such use does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests under the Policy. See, e.g., Bitwarden, Inc. v. Milen Radumilo, FA 1960964 (Forum Sept. 30, 2021) (finding lack of rights or interests in similar circumstances); Institutional Shareholder Services Inc. v. Milen Radumilo, FA 1921738 (Forum Jan. 18, 2021) (same).
Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name, and Respondent has failed to come forward with any evidence of such rights or interests. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has sustained its burden of proving that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
Finally, Complainant must show that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Under paragraph 4(b)(iii) of the Policy, bad faith may be shown by evidence that Respondent registered the disputed domain name "primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor." Under paragraph 4(b)(iv), bad faith may be shown by evidence that "by using the domain name, [Respondent] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [Respondent's] web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [Respondent's] web site or location or of a product or service on [Respondent's] web site or location."
Respondent registered a domain name incorporating Complainant's registered mark, and the domain name does not appear to have been used for any purpose other than in connection with malware dissemination or phishing. Such conduct is indicative of bad faith registration and use under the Policy. See, e.g., Bitwarden, Inc. v. Milen Radumilo, supra (finding bad faith in similar circumstances); Institutional Shareholder Services Inc. v. Milen Radumilo, supra (same). The Panel is also mindful of Respondent's long history of adverse determinations under the Policy. See, e.g., Morgan Stanley v. Milen Radumilo, FA 1980089 (Forum Feb. 22, 2022) (ordering transfer of <morgnastanley.com>); Dunkin’ Brands Group, Inc. / DD IP Holder LLC / BR IP Holder LLC v. Milen Radumilo, FA 1833038 (ordering transfer of <dukindonuts.com> and <baskinrobbinsicecream.com>); Discover Financial Services v. Milen Radumilo, FA 1784143 (Forum June 1, 2018) (ordering transfer of <www-discovercard.com>); Energizer Brands, LLC v. Milen Radumilo, FA 1670639 (Forum May 9, 2016) (ordering transfer of <saidenergizer.com>). The Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
Having considered the three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <therocketlawyer.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
David E. Sorkin, Panelist
Dated: March 17, 2023
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page