DECISION

 

Carahsoft Technology Corp. v. After School White Oaks

Claim Number: FA2401002077450

PARTIES

Complainant is Carahsoft Technology Corp. ("Complainant"), represented by Adam D. Mandell of Millen, White, Zelano & Branigan, P.C., Virginia, USA. Respondent is After School White Oaks ("Respondent"), California, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <carahsuft.com>, registered with Wild West Domains, 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 January 2, 2024; Forum received payment on January 2, 2024.

 

On January 4, 2024, Wild West Domains, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <carahsuft.com> domain name is registered with Wild West Domains, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Wild West Domains, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Wild West Domains, 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 January 5, 2024, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of January 25, 2024 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@carahsuft.com. Also on January 5, 2024, 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 January 26, 2024, 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:

 

Since at least as early as 1999, Complainant has used the trademark CARAHSOFT in connection with value-added reseller services, namely, distributorship services featuring information technology products.

 

Complainant owns USPTO registrations for CARAHSOFT.

 

Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the at-issue domain name. Respondent is not known by the <carahsuft.com> domain name. Respondent has not used nor prepared to use the at-issue domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or service. Instead, Respondent uses the domain name in connection with a website with links to third party commercial websites offering various goods and services that are presumed to be pay-click links. Respondent concealed its identity though a privacy service.

 

Respondent's registered and used the at-issue domain name in bad faith. Respondent registered the domain name well after Complainant's had become well-known. Respondent has engaged in typosquatting. Further, Respondent uses the at-issue domain name in connection with website offering pay-per-click links to third-party websites offering various goods and services. Respondent is hiding its identity via a privacy service which is also evidence of bad faith. There is no plausible explanation for Respondent's registering the domain name other than to trade on Complainant's goodwill.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant has trademark rights in the CARAHSOFT 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 CARAHSOFT trademark.

 

Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to address 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 the CARAHSOFT mark with the USPTO sufficiently demonstrates Complainant's rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See DIRECTV, LLC v. The Pearline Group, FA 1818749 (Forum Dec. 30, 2018) ("Complainant's ownership of a USPTO registration for DIRECTV demonstrate its rights in such mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).").

 

Respondent's <carahsuft.com> domain name contains a recognizable misspelled version of Complainant's CARAHSOFT trademark where the mark's letter "o" is replaced with a letter "u". All is followed by the ".com" top-level to complete the domain name. The differences between Complainant's trademark and the at-issue domain name fail to distinguish the domain name from Complainant's trademark for the purposes of the Policy. Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent's <carahsuft.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's CARAHSOFT trademark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Acme Lift Company, L.L.C. v. VistaPrint Technologies Ltd, FA 1607039 (Forum Apr. 11, 2015) (stating: "Where a respondent has created a domain name in an effort to visually deceive Internet users via a simple misspelling (and when such misspellings are visually similar to the mark), a finding of confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) is appropriate.").

 

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 (Nat. Arb. 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 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 <carahsuft.com> indicates that "After School White Oaks" is the domain name's registrant and there is no evidence in the record indicating that Respondent is commonly known by <carahsuft.com>. 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 (Nat. Arb. 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 <carahsuft.com> to address a website offering pay-per-click links. Respondent's use of the <carahsuft.com> domain name is thus 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 Insomniac Holdings, LLC v. Mark Daniels, FA 1735969 (Forum July 15, 2017) ("Respondent's use of <edcorlando.xyz> also does not qualify as a bona fide offering… the <edcorlando.xyz> 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.").

 

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 from which the Panel concludes that Respondent acted in bad faith pursuant to the Policy.

 

First, Respondent is using its confusingly similar <carahsuft.com> domain name to address a webpage displaying pay-per-click links. Using the domain name in such manner is disruptive to Complainant's business, takes unfair advantage of the confusion between the at-issue domain name and Complainant's trademark, and indicates Respondent's bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Vivint, Inc. v. Online Management, FA1403001549084 (Forum Apr. 23, 2014) (holding that the respondent had registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith according to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the disputed domain name resolved to a parking page that featured no content besides sponsored advertisements and links).

 

Moreover, Respondent is engaged in typosquatting. Typosquatting is a practice whereby a domain name registrant deliberately introduces typographical errors or misspellings into a trademark or other identifying text and then uses the resulting string to form 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 or related website and/or, 2) in viewing the domain name will confuse such domain name with its target. Respondent's at-issue domain name is near identical to Complainant trademark as Respondent merely replaces the letter "o" in Complainant's trademark with a "u" in forming the confusingly similar <carahsuft.com> domain name. There is some likelihood that a number of internet users will misspell Complainant's mark and further assume the widely used "com" top-level when attempting to guess Complainant's official domain name. The erroneous guess will instead deliver the internet user to Respondent's pay-per-click website. Additionally, upon reading <carahsuft.com> in a search result or elsewhere it is predicable that the domain name may pass for the address of what is believed to be Complainant's official website, notwithstanding the misspelling of Complainant's CARAHSOFT trademark. 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)).

 

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

 

 

 

Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist

Dated: January 26, 2024