Holland & Hart LLP v. Mike Brad
Claim Number: FA2302002033304
Complainant is Holland & Hart LLP (“Complainant”), represented by Hope Hamilton of Holland & Hart LLP, Colorado. Respondent is Mike Brad (“Respondent”), New York.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <holandhart.org>, registered with NameCheap, Inc.
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.
Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 24, 2023; Forum received payment on February 24, 2023.
On February 24, 2023, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <holandhart.org> domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. 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 February 28, 2023, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 20, 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@holandhart.org. Also on February 28, 2023, 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 March 24, 2023, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Paul M. DeCicco 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 contends as follows:
Complainant is a Colorado-based global manufacturing and technology company.
Complainant has rights in the HOLLAND&HART mark through registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”).
The at-issue domain name <holandhart.org> is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark because it incorporates an intentional misspelling of the HOLLAND&HART mark by removing an “L” and ampersand, and adding the “.org” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).
Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the at-issue domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name, nor has Complainant authorized Respondent to use the HOLLAND&HART mark in any way. Additionally, Respondent fails to use the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent uses the at-issue domain to host pay-per-click ads and conduct a phishing scheme by impersonating Complainant.
Respondent registered and uses the at-issue domain in bad faith. First, Respondent uses the domain name to impersonate Complainant in emails. Also, Respondent uses the at-issue domain in connection with a phishing scheme. Furthermore, Respondent uses the at-issue domain to host pay-per-click ads. Respondent also had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the HOLLAND&HART mark prior to registration of the domain name. Finally, Respondent is engaging in typosquatting.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant has rights in the Complainant has rights in the HOLLAND&HART mark.
Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and had not been authorized to use Complainant’s trademark in any capacity.
Respondent registered the at‑issue domain name after Complainant acquired rights in the HOLLAND&HART trademark.
Respondent uses the domain name to pass itself off as Complainant in furtherance of a phishing scheme and to host pay-per-click links.
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 at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.
Complainant’s registration of the HOLLAND&HART mark with the USPTO demonstrates Complainant’s rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Haas Automation, Inc. v. Jim Fraser, FA 1627211 (Forum Aug. 4, 2015) (finding that Complainant’s USPTO registrations for the HAAS mark sufficiently demonstrate its rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)); see also, Red Hat, Inc. v. Muhammad Shahzad, FA 1787738 (Forum June 19, 2018) (“Registration of a mark with multiple trademark agencies is sufficient to demonstrate rights to a mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”).
Respondent’s <holandhart.org> domain name consists of Complainant’s HOLLAND&HART trademark less an “l” and less its impermissible ampersand, with all followed by the “.org” top-level domain name. The differences between Respondent’s domain name and Complainant’s trademark do nothing to distinguish the <holandhart.org> domain name from Complainant’s HOLLAND&HART mark. Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent’s <holandhart.org> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s HOLLAND&HART trademark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See McKinsey Holdings, Inc. v. Indidom, D2000-1616 (WIPO Jan. 31, 2001) (finding that the removal of the ampersand from “McKinsey & Company” does not affect the user’s understanding of the domain name, and therefore the domain name <mckinseycompany.com> is identical and/or confusingly similar to the mark “McKinsey & Company”); see also, Twitch Interactive, Inc. v. zhang qin, FA 1626511 (Forum Aug. 4, 2015) (finding, “The relevant comparison then resolves to the trademark, TWITCH, with the term, ‘titch,’ which, as can be readily seen, merely removes the letter ‘w’ from the trademark. In spite of that omission the compared integers remain visually and aurally very similar and so Panel finds them to be confusingly similar for the purposes of the Policy.”)
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. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006). Since Respondent failed to respond, absent evidence of Policy ¶4(c) circumstances Complainant’s prima facie showing acts conclusively.
Respondent lacks both rights and legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant’s trademark in any capacity and, as discussed below, there are no Policy ¶4(c) circumstances from which the Panel might find that Respondent has rights or interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. See Charter Communications Holding Company, LLC v. Taha Shaikh / Tskdesigners, FA 1814475 (Forum Nov. 25, 2018) (finding no rights or legitimate interests in <spectrumfeature.com> because complainant never gave respondent permission to use the mark in any manner and “Panels may use these assertions as evidence that no rights or legitimate interests exist in a disputed domain name.”).
The WHOIS information for <holandhart.org> ultimately indicates that “Mike Brad” is the domain name’s registrant and there is nothing in the record before the Panel that tends to prove that Respondent is known by the <holandhart.org> domain name. As such, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Coppertown Drive-Thru Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089 (Forum July 17, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <coppertown.com> domain name where there was no evidence in the record, including the WHOIS information, suggesting that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name).
Respondent uses the confusingly similar <holandhart.org> domain name to host email pretending to be from Complainant in furtherance of distributing bogus invoices ultimate intended to allow Respondent to swindle funds from parties seeking technical support from Complainant. Respondent’s use of the <holandhart.org> domain name in this manner is not indicative of a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i), nor of a non-commercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(iii). See Emerson Electric Co. v. Adilcon Rocha, FA 1735949 (Forum July 11, 2017) (finding that respondent’s attempt to pass off as complainant through emails does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services and, as such, respondent lacked rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name); see also, Enterprise Holdings, Inc. v. I S / Internet Consulting Services Inc., FA 1785242 (Forum June 5, 2018) (“On its face, the use of a domain name that is confusingly similar to the mark of another in order to facilitate a phishing scheme cannot be described as either a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶4(c)(iii).”).
Additionally, Respondent’s <holandhart.org> domain name addresses a website containing pay-per-click links and advertisements. Respondent’s use of the domain name to promote pay-per-click links and advertisements is not is not indicative of a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i), nor of a non-commercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(iii). See Vance Int’l, Inc. v. Abend, FA 970871 (Forum June 8, 2007) (concluding that the operation of a pay-per-click website at a confusingly similar domain name does not represent a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, regardless of whether or not the links resolve to competing or unrelated websites or if the respondent is itself commercially profiting from the click-through fees).
Given the forgoing, Complainant satisfies its initial burden under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) and demonstrates Respondent’s lack of rights and lack of interests in respect of the at-issue domain name.
Respondent’s <holandhart.org> domain name was registered and used in bad faith. As discussed below without limitation, bad faith circumstances are present that permit the Panel to conclude that Respondent acted in bad faith pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
First, Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to facilitate an email phishing scheme. The domain name is used to host email. Respondent uses email from <holandhart.org> to impersonate Complainant so that Respondent may pass itself off as Complainant and thereby fraudulently invoice parties that believe they are dealing with Complainant. Such activity indicates Respondent’s bad faith under the Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) and otherwise. See Emdeon Business Services, LLC v. HR Emdeon Careers, FA1507001629459 (Forum Aug. 14, 2015) (finding that the respondent had engaged in an email phishing scheme indicating bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii), where respondent was coordinating the disputed domain name to send emails to Internet users and advising them that they had been selected for a job interview with the complainant and was persuading the users to disclose personal information in the process); see also, Abbvie, Inc. v. James Bulow, FA 1701075 (Forum Nov. 30, 2016) (“Respondent uses the <abbuie.com> domain name to impersonate Complainant’s CEO. Such use is undeniably disruptive to Complainant’s business and demonstrates bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii), and/or Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)”); see also, Perot Sys. Corp. v. Perot.net, FA 95312 (Forum Aug. 29, 2000) (finding bad faith where the domain name in question is obviously connected with the complainant’s well-known marks, thus creating a likelihood of confusion strictly for commercial gain).
Next, Respondent engages in typosquatting. Typosquatting is a practice whereby a domain name registrant deliberately introduces typographical errors or misspellings into a trademark and then uses the resulting string in a domain name. The registrant hopes that internet users will inadvertently type the malformed string when searching for content related to the domain name’s target trademark and/or upon reading the domain name will overlook the misspelling and subsequently believe the domain name is related to, or sponsored by, the target trademark. In the instant case, Respondent’s <holandhart.org> domain name contains a recognizable variant of Complainant’s trademark notwithstanding that an “l” has been removed from the embedded mark. The domain name is a prospective misspelling of Complainant’s mark and might, if not read carefully, pass for one of Complainant’s genuine domain names. Typosquatting, in itself, indicates bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Computerized Sec. Sys., Inc. v. Hu, FA 157321 (Forum June 23, 2003) (finding that the respondent engaged in typosquatting, which is evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)).
Respondent also uses the at-issue domain name to display pay-per-click links. Such use of the domain name further shows Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of <holandhart.org>. See Plain Green, LLC v. wenqiang tang, FA 1505001621656 (Forum July 1, 2015) (finding that the respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to feature generic third-party hyperlinks constituted bad faith according to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)).
Moreover, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the HOLLAND&HART mark at the time it registered <holandhart.org> as a domain name. Respondent’s actual knowledge is evident from the notoriety of Complainant’s HOLLAND&HART trademark; from Respondent’s overt misspelling of the Complainant’s mark as embedded in the at-issue domain name; and from Respondent’s use of the confusingly similar domain name to perpetrate an email phishing scheme as discussed elsewhere herein. Respondent’s registration and use of <holandhart.org> with knowledge of Complainant’s rights in HOLLAND&HART further shows Respondent’s bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶4(a)(iii). See Spectrum Brands, Inc. v. Guo Li Bo, FA 1760233 (Forum January 5, 2018) (“[T]he fact Respondent registered a domain name that looked identical to the SPECTRUM BRANDS mark and used that as an email address to pass itself off as Complainant shows that Respondent knew of Complainant and its trademark rights at the time of registration.”); see also, Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name); see also, 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).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <holandhart.org> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist
Dated: March 24, 2023
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page