Huron Consulting Group Inc. v. Paul Abrahms
Claim Number: FA2304002038815
Complainant is Huron Consulting Group Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Caitlin R. Byczko of Barnes & Thornburg LLP, Illinois, USA. Respondent is Paul Abrahms (“Respondent”), Illinois, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <huronconsultinggroup.careers>, (‘the Domain Name’) 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.
Dawn Osborne as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on April 4, 2023; Forum received payment on April 4, 2023.
On April 4, 2023, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <huronconsultinggroup.careers> 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 April 6, 2023, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 26, 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@huronconsultinggroup.careers. Also on April 6, 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 May 2, 2023 pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Dawn Osborne 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
The Complainant’s contentions can be summarized as follows:
The Complainant is the owner of the HURON CONSULTING GROUP mark registered in the USA for business consultancy services and used since 2002.
The Domain Name registered in 2023 is identical for the purposes of the Policy to the Complainant’s mark adding only the gTLD ‘.careers’.
Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, not being commonly known by the Domain Name or authorized by the Complainant. The Domain Name has been used for competing third party commercial links and used for an e mail phishing scheme using the name of one of the Complainant’s officers and an attachment containing material from the Complainant’s web site and the Complainant’s logo as a masthead. The name of one of the officers of the Complainant and the Complainant’s address details have been used falsely for the WhoIS. This is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a noncommercial legitimate fair use.
The Domain Name has been registered and used in opportunistic bad faith. Phishing is bad faith per se and designed to disrupt the Complainant’s business.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
The Complainant is the owner of the HURON CONSULTING GROUP mark registered in the USA for business consultancy services and used since 2002.
The Domain Name registered in 2023 has been used for third party commercial pay per click links and an e mail 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 Domain Name consists of the Complainant's HURON CONSULTING GROUP mark (which is registered, inter alia, in the USA for business consultancy services and has been used since 2002) and the gTLD ‘.careers’.
The gTLD ‘.careers’ does not serve to distinguish the Domain Name from the Complainant’s mark, which is the distinctive component of the Domain Name. See Red Hat Inc v. Haecke, FA 726010 (Forum July 24, 2006) (concluding that the redhat.org domain name is identical to the complainant's red hat mark because the mere addition of the gTLD was insufficient to differentiate the disputed domain name from the mark).
Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Domain Name is identical for the purposes of the Policy to a mark in which the Complainant has rights.
As such the Panel holds that Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been satisfied.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant has not authorized the use of its mark. Although the name of one of the Complainant’s officers and the Complainant’s address details appears on the WhoIs details, the Domain Name was not registered until 2023 and is not associated with the Complainant. There is no evidence to show that the Respondent is commonly known by the Domain Name. see Ripple Labs Inc. v. Jessie McKoy / Ripple Reserve Fund, FA 1790949 (Forum July 9, 2018) (finding that, although the respondent listed itself as “Jessie McKoy / Ripple Reserve Fund” in the WHOIS contact information, it did not provide any affirmative evidence to support this identity; combined with the fact that the complainant claimed it did not authorize the respondent to use the mark, the respondent is not commonly known by the domain name).
The Domain Name has been used in a fraudulent e mail phishing attempt using the name of one of the Complainant’s officers and an attachment using material taken from the Complainant’s web site featuring the Complainant’s logo as a masthead. This is deceptive and confusing. As such it cannot amount to the bona fide offering of goods and services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See DaVita Inc. v. Cynthia Rochelo, FA 1738034 (Forum July 20, 2017) (finding that ‘Passing off in furtherance of a fraudulent scheme is not considered a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use’.).
Use for pay per click links does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See Insomniac Holdings, LLC v. Mark Daniels, FA 1735969 (Forum July 15, 2017) (”Respondent’s use of .. domain name resolves to a site containing pay-per-click hyperlinks and advertisements… Since these kinds of advertisements generate revenue for the holder of a domain name, they cannot be noncommercial; further, they do not qualify as a bona fide offering.”).
The Respondent has not answered this Complaint or rebutted the prima facie case evidenced by the Complainant as set out herein.
As such the Panelist finds that the Respondent does not have rights or a legitimate interest in the Domain Name and that the Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
Impersonating a complainant by use of the Domain Name in a fraudulent phishing attempt is disruptive and evinces bad faith registration and use. See Microsoft Corporation v. Terrence Green/ Whois Agent/Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc., FA 1661030 (Forum Apr. 4, 2016) (finding that respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to send fraudulent e mails constituted bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy 4(b)(iii).).
The use of the name of one of the Complainant’s officers in the Respondent’s fraudulent phishing e mail scheme and the use of an attachment containing material from the Complainant’s web site which featured the Complainant’s logo as a masthead shows that the Respondent is aware of the Complainant, its rights, business and services.
Use for pay per click links indicates bad faith being disruptive of the Complainant’s business and diverting customers for commercial gain and can also indicate actual knowledge of the Complainant and its business. In the opinion of the panelist the use made of the Domain Name is confusing and disruptive in that visitors to the site might reasonably believe they are connected to or approved by the Complainant as they contained links to competing business consultancy services. Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trade mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the links on the web site or services offered on it likely to disrupt the business of the Complainant. See Health Republic Insurance Company v. Above.comLegal, FA 1506001622088 (Forum July 10, 2015) re diversion to pay per click links.
Providing false information at the time of a domain name’s registration may be evidence of respondent’s bad faith registration and use under Policy 4(a)(iii). See Farouk Systems, Inc. v. Jack King / SLB, FA1505001618704 (Forum June 19, 2015) (finding bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) where the respondent had provided false contact information when registering the disputed domain name). Here in the context of phishing providing falsely name and address details of the Complainant is clearly in bad faith.
As such, the Panelist believes that the Complainant has made out its case that the Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith and has satisfied the third limb of the Policy under 4(b)(iii) and 4(b)(iv).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <huronconsultinggroup.careers> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Dawn Osborne, Panelist
Dated: May 5, 2023
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page