DECISION

 

Bainbridge Capital, Inc. v. Logan

Claim Number: FA2308002059897

PARTIES

Complainant is Bainbridge Capital, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Matthew A. Homyk of Blank Rome LLP, US. Respondent is Logan ("Respondent"), US.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME 

The domain name at issue is <bainbridgejobs.com>, registered with Google LLC.

 

PANEL

The undersigned certifies that they have acted independently and impartially and to the best of their knowledge have no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.

 

Richard Hill as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on August 31, 2023; Forum received payment on August 31, 2023.

 

On August 31, 2023, Google LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <bainbridgejobs.com> domain name is registered with Google LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Google LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Google 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 September 1, 2023, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 21, 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@bainbridgejobs.com. Also on September 1, 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 September 22, 2023, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Richard Hill 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.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant states that it is America's premiere technology-enabled, strategy consulting and capital advisory partner to the Fortune 1000 and Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises around the globe for the past 27 years. Forbes top-ranked for six years in a row, teams at Complainant partner with clients as a single unit, with the shared goal of producing exceptional data, insights, and analysis to redefine how they look at their market and opportunities. Complainant is an unmatched digital disruptor, using technology at every step to expand its horizons across data access, research, and financial services delivery and provide the same access to its clients. Complainant asserts rights in the BAINBRIDGE mark through its registration in the United States in 2008.

 

Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its BAINBRIDGE mark because it incorporates the mark in its entirety and merely adds the generic/descriptive term "jobs" and the ".com" generic top-level domain ("gTLD"). Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.

 

According to Complainant, Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Complainant authorized Respondent's use of the mark. Respondent is not making a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use through the disputed domain name. Instead, Respondent uses the disputed domain name to conduct a fraudulent email phishing scheme. Specifically, Respondent used the disputed domain name to impersonate one of Complainant's employees in email messages which instruct the client to send sensitive personal information, including a copy of government ID, to Respondent, in an effort to deceive the recipient into believing Respondent was an employee or agent of Complainant; the emails also inform the recipients that they will need to buy computer equipment for the new job, but then asks them to send a payment to Respondent, who never sends any equipment in exchange for the stolen money; the signature block of the fraudulent emails displays Complainant's mark and distinctive logo. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.

 

Further, says Complainant, Respondent is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent has engaged in a fraudulent phishing scheme, attempting to pass itself off as Complainant. Respondent had actual knowledge of the mark and Complainant's rights therein. Respondent used a privacy service. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant has registered trademark rights in the BAINBRIDGE mark, dating back to 2008, and uses it provide technology-enabled strategy consulting. 

 

The disputed domain name was registered in 2023.

 

Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark.

 

Respondent is using the disputed domain name to send fraudulent emails and to conduct a phishing scheme. The signature block of the fraudulent emails displays Complainant's mark and distinctive logo.

 

DISCUSSION

Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and 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").

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

 

The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's BAINBRIDGE mark in its entirety, merely adding the generic/descriptive term "jobs" and the ".com" generic top-level domain ("gTLD"). Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), adding a gTLD and/or generic/descriptive terms is generally insufficient in differentiating a disputed domain name from the mark it incorporates. See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("Where a relevant trademark is recognisable within a disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element."); see also Vanguard Group Inc. v. Proven Fin. Solutions, FA 572937 (Forum Nov. 18, 2005) (holding that the addition of both the word "advisors" and the gTLD ".com" did not sufficiently alter the disputed domain name to negate a finding of confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)). Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

 

Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its BAINBRIDGE mark. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name: under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), WHOIS information may be used to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. See Tercent Inc. v. Lee Yi, FA 139720 (Forum Feb. 10, 2003) (stating "nothing in [the respondent's] WHOIS information implies that [the respondent] is 'commonly known by' the disputed domain name" as one factor in determining that Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) does not apply); see also Alaska Air Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines v. Song Bin, FA 1408001574905 (Forum Sept. 17, 2014) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name as demonstrated by the WHOIS information and based on the fact that the complainant had not licensed or authorized the respondent to use its ALASKA AIRLINES mark). Here, the WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the registrant as "Logan". Therefore the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

Respondent is making neither a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. Rather, Respondent uses the disputed domain name to conduct a fraudulent email phishing scheme. Specifically, Respondent used the disputed domain name to impersonate one of Complainant's employees in email messages which instruct the client to send sensitive personal information, including a copy of government ID, to Respondent, in an effort to deceive the recipient into believing Respondent was an employee or agent of Complainant; the emails also inform the recipients that they will need to buy computer equipment for the new job, but then asks them to send a payment to Respondent. Panels have found such use by a respondent consists of neither a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See Morgan Stanley v. Zhange Sheng Xu / Zhang Sheng Xu, FA1501001600534 (Forum February 26, 2015) ("The Panel agrees that the respondent's apparent phishing attempt provides further indication that the respondent lacks any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)."); see also Blackstone TM L.L.C. v. Mita Irelant Ltd., FA 1314998 (Forum Apr. 30, 2010) ("The Panel finds that Respondent's attempt to "phish" for users' personal information is neither a bona fide offering of goods and services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)."). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent's use of the disputed domain name constitutes neither a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). And the Panel finds that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

 

Respondent (who did not reply to Complainant's contentions) has not presented any plausible explanation for its use of Complainant's mark. In accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel shall draw such inferences from Respondent's failure to reply as it considers appropriate. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent did not have a legitimate use in mind when registering the disputed domain name.

 

Indeed, as noted above, Respondent uses the disputed domain name in furtherance of a fraudulent email phishing scheme. This behavior is evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Yahoo! Inc. v. Kalra, FA 1650447 (Forum Dec. 31, 2015); Qatalyst Partners LP v. Devimore, FA 1393436 (Forum Jul. 13, 2011) (finding that using the disputed domain name as an e-mail address to pass itself off as the complainant in a phishing scheme is evidence of bad faith registration and use.); see also National Oilwell Varco, L.P. v. Craig Wood/NOV, FA 1575951 (Forum Sept. 22, 2014) (finding bad faith where respondent fraudulently attempted to induce wire transfers by sending e-mails purporting to be from complainant's President and CEO); see also Capital One Financial Corporation and Capital One Bank v. Austin Howel, FA 289304 (Forum Aug. 11, 2004) (finding bad faith where respondent used complainant's mark to fraudulently induce transfer of credit and personal identification information). Consequently, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

Further, Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant's mark: the signature block of the fraudulent emails displays Complainant's mark and distinctive logo. While constructive notice is insufficient to demonstrate bad faith, actual knowledge of a complainant's rights in a mark prior to registration may be evidence of bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Custom Modular Direct LLC v. Custom Modular Homes Inc., FA 1140580 (Forum Apr. 8, 2008) ("There is no place for constructive notice under the Policy."); see also 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."); 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 name). The Panel finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the mark prior to Respondent's registration of the disputed domain name and that this constitutes bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

DECISION

Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <bainbridgejobs.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Richard Hill, Panelist

Dated: September 22, 2023