DECISION

 

Huron Consulting Group Inc. v. Carolina Rodrigues / Fundacion Comercio Electronico

Claim Number: FA2310002066907

PARTIES

Complainant is Huron Consulting Group Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Melissa A. Vallone of Barnes & Thornburg LLP, Illinois, USA. Respondent is Carolina Rodrigues / Fundacion Comercio Electronico ("Respondent"), Panama City, Panama.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME 

The domain name at issue is <huronconsultinggrroup.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.

 

PANEL

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.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on October 19, 2023; Forum received payment on October 19, 2023.

 

On October 19, 2023, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <huronconsultinggrroup.com> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, 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 October 23, 2023, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of November 13, 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@huronconsultinggrroup.com. Also on October 23, 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 November 14, 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.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

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

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant contends as follows:

 

Complainant Huron Consulting Group Inc. is a worldwide consulting firm assisting clients in diverse industries to, for example, improve performance, comply with complex regulations, reduce costs, recover from distress, leverage technology, and stimulate growth.

 

Complainant's has rights in HURON CONSULTING GROUP through the mark's registration with the USPTO as well as with other trademark agencies worldwide.

 

The at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's HURON CONSULTING GROUP trademark with Respondent merely adding an extra "r" to the term "GROUP" and the top-level ".com" before incorporating the mark into the <huronconsultinggrroup.com> domain name.

 

Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the at-issue domain name. Respondent has never been commonly known by the HURON CONSULTING GROUP as the WHOIS information identifies the domain name's registrant as "Private Registrant." Nor has Respondent made a bona fide offering of goods or services under the domain name as the domain name addresses a landing page displaying pay-per-click links.

 

Respondent registered and uses the at-issue domain name in bad faith. Respondent uses the domain name to deceive consumers as to the sponsorship of the domain name thereby disrupting Complainant's business. Respondent had actual or constructive knowledge of Complainant's mark when it registered <huronconsultinggrroup.com>. Respondent used a privacy service to register the at-issue domain name and is engaged in typosquatting.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant has rights in the HURON CONSULTING GROUP trademark.

 

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 HURON CONSULTING GROUP.

 

Respondent's <huronconsultinggrroup.com> addresses a webpage hosting pay-per-click links.

 

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 at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.

 

Complainant's registration of HURON CONSULTING GROUP with the USPTO is sufficient to  demonstrate Complainant's rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).  See Target Brands, Inc. v. jennifer beyer, FA 1738027 (Forum July 31, 2017) ("Complainant has rights in its TARGET service mark for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) by virtue of its registration of the mark with a national trademark authority, the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO").").

 

Respondent's <huronconsultinggrroup.com> domain name contains Complainant's HURON CONSULTING GROUP trademark less its domain name impermissible spaces where the mark is misspelled by inserting an additional letter "r" into the mark's GROUP term. The domain name concludes with the ".com" top-level domain name. The differences between Complainant's trademark and the at-issue domain name do not distinguish the domain name from Complainant's mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent's <huronconsultinggrroup.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's HURON CONSULTING GROUP trademark. See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Domain Administrator / Registry Services, LLC, FA2303002038314, Forum July 26, 2023) ("The addition of a gTLD fails to sufficiently distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)."); see also, OpenTable, Inc. v. Above.com Domain Privacy, FA 1626187 (Forum Aug. 10, 2015 ("Respondent's <oipentable.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the OPENTABLE mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) because the disputed domain merely adds the letter 'i' . . . ");

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

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 legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. See Emerson Electric Co. v. golden humble / golden globals, FA 1787128 (Forum June 11, 2018) ("lack of evidence in the record to indicate a respondent is authorized to use [the] complainant's mark may support a finding that [the] respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)").

 

The WHOIS information for <huronconsultinggrroup.com> ultimately indicates that "Carolina Rodrigues" is the domain name's registrant and there is nothing in the record showing that Respondent is otherwise known by the <huronconsultinggrroup.com> domain name. Therefore, 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 <huronconsultinggrroup.com> to host hyperlinks to third parties. Such use of the domain name 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 Danbyg Ejendomme A/S v. lb Hansen / guerciotti, FA1504001613867 (Forum June 2, 2015) (finding that the respondent had failed to provide a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name where the disputed domain name resolved to a website that offered both competing hyperlinks and hyperlinks unrelated to the complainant's business).

 

Given the forgoing, Complainant satisfies its initial burden under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) and demonstrates Respondent's lack of rights and lack of legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

As discussed below without being exhaustive, there is evidence that leads the Panel to find that Respondent acted in bad faith pursuant to the Policy.

 

First and as mentioned above regarding rights and legitimate interests, Respondent used the at-issue domain name to direct internet users to a webpage displaying links to third-parties. These links presumably benefit Respondent under a pay-per-click arrangement. Respondent's use of the domain name in this manner is disruptive to Complainant's business and capitalizes on the confusion that Respondent created between the domain name and Complainant's trademark. Respondent's use of <huronconsultinggrroup.com> in this manner thus shows Respondent's bad faith registration and use pursuant under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). 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)); see also, Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company v.  Kentech Company LTD, FA0501000406522 (Forum March 4, 2005) ("[T]he Panel infers that Respondent receives click- through fees for diverting Internet users to competing car rental services. Since Respondent is using a domain name that is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark, consumers searching for Complainant online who access Respondent's domain name may become confused as to Complainant's affiliation with the resulting website. Thus, the Panel finds that Respondent's commercial use of the <carenterprise.com> constitutes bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).").

 

Next, Respondent is engaged 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: 1) inadvertently type the malformed string when searching for content related to the domain name's target trademark and/or, 2) in viewing the domain name will confuse it with its target trademark, a web address, an email address, or some other textual reference to the mark holder. Here, Respondent's at-issue domain name is formed by adding a superfluous "r" to Complainant's HURON CONSULTING GROUP trademark. Upon casually glancing at Respondent's <huronconsultinggrroup.com> domain name it is predicable that the domain name, when viewed by some number of internet users, will pass for the address of Complainant's official website at <huronconsultinggrroup.com>. There is perhaps also some likelihood that typing errors by internet users seeking Complainant will inadvertently deliver them to Respondent's pay-per-click webpage. Typosquatting is, in itself, indicative of bad faith. 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)).

 

Moreover, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in HURON CONSULTING GROUP when it registered <huronconsultinggrroup.com> as a domain name. Respondent's prior knowledge of Complainant's marks is evident from the notoriety of Complainant's HURON CONSULTING GROUP trademark. Respondent's registration and use of the confusingly similar <huronconsultinggrroup.com> domain name with knowledge of Complainant's trademark rights in HURON CONSULTING GROUP shows Respondent's bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See 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 name).

 

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 <huronconsultinggrroup.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

 

Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist

Dated: November 14, 2023