DECISION

 

Insperity, Inc. v. Nikhil Kashyap / Coinbound

Claim Number: FA2401002079577

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Insperity, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Danae T. Robinson of Pirkey Barber PLLC, Virginia, USA. Respondent is Nikhil Kashyap / Coinbound ("Respondent"), India.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES 

The domain names at issue are <insperity.link>, <insperity.email>, <insperity.click>, <insperity.website>, <insperity.network> and <insperity.digital>, registered with Namecheap, Inc.

 

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 January 17, 2024; Forum received payment on January 17, 2024.

 

On January 17, 2024, Namecheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <insperity.link>, <insperity.email>, <insperity.click>, <insperity.website>, <insperity.network> and <insperity.digital> domain names are 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 January 18, 2024, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 7, 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@insperity.link, postmaster@insperity.email, postmaster@insperity.click, postmaster@insperity.website, postmaster@insperity.network, and postmaster@insperity.digital. Also on January 18, 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 February 8, 2024, 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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant states that it is a leading provider of human resources and business solutions designed to help improve business performance, including employee insurance-related services. Complainant asserts rights in the INSPERITY mark through its registration in the United States in 2012.

 

Complainant alleges that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to its INSPERITY mark as they incorporate the entire mark and merely add a generic top-level domain ("gTLD").

 

According to Complainant, Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant's INSPERITY mark and is not commonly known by the disputed domain names. Respondent does not use the disputed domain names for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, the disputed domain names are redirected to Complainant's legitimate website.

 

Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain names in bad faith: they are redirected to Complainant's legitimate website. Respondent used a privacy service. Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the INSPERITY mark.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant owns the mark INSPERITY and uses it to provide human resources and business solutions.

 

Complainant's rights in its mark date back to 2012.

 

The disputed domain names were registered in 2023.

 

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

 

The disputed domain names are redirected to Complainant's legitimate website.

 

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 names incorporate Complainant's INSPERITY mark in its entirety and merely add a generic top-level domain ("gTLD"). This does not distinguish the disputed domain names from the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Dell Inc. v. Protection of Private Person, FA 1681432 (Forum Aug. 1, 2016) ("A TLD (whether a gTLD, sTLD or ccTLD) is disregarded under a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis because domain name syntax requires TLDs"); see also Abbott Labs v. Whois Svc., FA0903001254682 (Forum May 14, 2009) ("the addition of a gTLD is irrelevant in distinguishing a disputed domain name from a registered mark"); see also Twitter, Inc. v. Jie, FA 1919786 (Forum Dec. 9, 2020) ("The Panel considers the disputed domain name [<twitter.luxe>] to be identical to Complainant's registered [TWITTER] trademark"). Thus the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are identical to Complainant's mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names: under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), WHOIS information may be used to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. See Chevron Intellectual Property LLC v. Fred Wallace, FA 1626022 (Forum July 27, 2015) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <chevron-europe.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), as the WHOIS information named "Fred Wallace" as registrant of the disputed domain name); see also Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. LY Ta, FA 1789106 (Forum June 21, 2018) (concluding a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name where the complainant asserted it did not authorize the respondent to use the mark, and the relevant WHOIS information indicated the respondent is not commonly known by the domain name). Here, the WHOIS information for the disputed domain names lists the registrant as "Nikhil Kashyap / Coinbound". Therefore the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

Respondent uses the disputed domain names to redirect Internet users to Complainant's own website. Using a confusingly similar domain name to redirect to a complainant's own website may not be a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Medline, Inc. v. Domain Active Pty. Ltd., FA 139718 (Forum Feb. 6, 2003) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where the respondent merely redirected the <wwwmedline.com> domain name to the complainant's own website at <medline.com>). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not using the disputed domain names to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or 4(c)(iii). And the Panel finds that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.

 

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 names.

 

Indeed, as already noted, Respondent uses the disputed domain names to redirect Internet users to Complainant's own website. Using a disputed domain name to redirect to a complainant's own website can evidence bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Verizon Trademark Servs. LLC v. Boyiko, FA 1382148 (Forum May 12, 2011) ("The Panel finds that Respondent's registration and use of the confusingly similar disputed domain name, even where it resolves to Complainant's own site, is still registration and use in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)."). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain names in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

Further, Respondent registered the disputed domain names with actual knowledge of Complainant's mark: the disputed domain names redirect to Complainant's legitimate website. 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 names and that this constitutes bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

Finally, Respondent displays a pattern of bad faith registration of disputed domain names containing Complainant's INSPERITY mark. Registration of multiple domain names containing a complainant's mark can substantiate an argument that a respondent registered and uses a disputed domain name in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). See NIKE, Inc., and Nike Innovate, C.V. v. Emile Boulanger, FA 1732458 (Forum July 3, 2017) (finding that registration of several infringing domain names in a case satisfies the burden imposed by the Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii)); see also Caterpillar Inc. v. Angie Arendt / DIAHOST .CO / keith mosley, FA 1789701 (Forum July 2, 2018) (finding that Respondent engaged in a pattern of bad faith and registration by registering multiple domain names that contain Complainant's famous CATERPILLAR mark); see also Radisson Hotels Internation, Inc. v. Yue Mei Wang / Wang Yue Mei aka Pei Jun Gan / Gan Pei Jun / Jun Yu He / He Jun Yu / Denliyan, FA 1615349 (Forum June 1, 2015) ("The Panel agrees that Respondent's registration of the <radissonbluplazachongqing.com>, <radissonbluchongqingshapingba.com>, <radissonplazahoteltianjin.com>, and <radissonbluhotelshanghai.com> domain names, which all infringe on Complainant's mark, constitutes bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii)."). Thus the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain names in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii).

 

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 <insperity.link>, <insperity.email>, <insperity.click>, <insperity.website>, <insperity.network> and <insperity.digital> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Richard Hill, Panelist

Dated: February 8, 2024