DECISION

 

Authority Brands, Inc. v. scott tammmy

Claim Number: FA2401002079673

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Authority Brands, Inc. ("Complainant"), United States, represented by Katlyn M. Moseley of Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, United States. Respondent is scott tammmy ("Respondent"), United States.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <authoritybrands.us>, registered with NameCheap, Inc.

 

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.

 

David E. Sorkin as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on January 18, 2024; Forum received payment on January 18, 2024.

 

On January 18, 2024, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by email to Forum that the <authoritybrands.us> 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 the U.S. Department of Commerce's usTLD 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 email to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@authoritybrands.us. Also on January 18, 2024, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the email 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 David E. Sorkin 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 to the usTLD Dispute Resolution Policy ("Rules"). Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the usTLD Policy, usTLD 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 is the parent company of 15 home service franchisors with more than 1,000 franchisees across the United States and Canada, to whom Complainant provides marketing, technology, and operational support. Complainant has used AUTHORITY BRANDS in connection with this business since 2017 and owns United States trademark registrations for AUTHORITY BRANDS in standard character form and as a design mark.

 

Respondent registered the disputed domain name <authoritybrands.us> in December 2023. Complainant alleges, with supporting evidence, that Respondent is using the domain name to impersonate Complainant in email messages and other communications with potential job applicants in an apparent phishing scheme, attempting to obtain bank account information from them. Complainant states that Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name and is not licensed or otherwise authorized to use Complainant's mark.

 

Complainant contends on the above grounds that the disputed domain name <authoritybrands.us> is identical or confusingly similar to its AUTHORITY BRANDS mark; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical to a mark in which Complainant has rights; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

 

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 or is being used in bad faith.

 

Given the similarity between the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy ("UDRP") and the usTLD Policy, the Panel will draw upon UDRP principles as applicable in rendering its decision.

 

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 Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, § 4.3 (3d ed. 2017), available at http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (dismissing complaint where complainant failed to "produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations").

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

The disputed domain name <authoritybrands.us> corresponds to Complainant's registered AUTHORITY BRANDS trademark, omitting the space and adding the ".us" top-level domain. Such alterations are normally disregarded for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. See, e.g., Scale Media Inc. v. Nelson Leiser, FA 1955043 (Forum Aug. 11, 2021) (finding <scalemedia.us> identical or confusingly similar to SCALE MEDIA); Industrielle Alliance, Assurance et Services Financiers Inc. v. Manuel Valentine, FA 1943449 (Forum June 16, 2021) (finding <investia.us> identical to INVESTIA). The Panel considers the disputed domain name to be identical to Complainant's registered mark.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Under the Policy, the Complainant must first make a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and then the burden shifts to the Respondent to come forward with concrete evidence of such rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Productions, Inc. v. Entertainment Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006).

 

The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's registered mark without authorization, and it is being used to impersonate Complainant in connection with a fraudulent phishing scheme. Such use does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests under the Policy. See, e.g., Target Brands, Inc. v. Mayoks Moro, FA 2035555 (Forum Apr. 11, 2023) (finding lack of rights or interests in similar circumstances); Scale Media Inc. v. Nelson Leiser, supra (same); Industrielle Alliance, Assurance et Services Financiers Inc. v. Manuel Valentine, supra (same).

 

Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name, and Respondent has failed to come forward with any evidence of such rights or interests. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has sustained its burden of proving that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.

 

Registration or Use in Bad Faith

Finally, Complainant must show that the disputed domain name was registered or is being used in bad faith. Under paragraph 4(b)(iii) of the Policy, bad faith may be shown by evidence that Respondent registered the disputed domain name "primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor." Under paragraph 4(b)(iv), bad faith may be shown by evidence that "by using the domain name, [Respondent] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [Respondent's] web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [Respondent's] web site or location or of a product or service on [Respondent's] web site or location."

 

The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's registered mark without authorization, and it is being used to impersonate Complainant in connection with a fraudulent phishing scheme. Such conduct is indicative of bad faith registration or use under the Policy. See, e.g., Target Brands, Inc. v. Mayoks Moro, supra (finding bad faith registration and use in similar circumstances); Scale Media Inc. v. Nelson Leiser, supra (same); Industrielle Alliance, Assurance et Services Financiers Inc. v. Manuel Valentine, supra (same). The Panel finds that the disputed domain name has been registered or is being used in bad faith.

 

DECISION

Having considered the three elements required under the usTLD Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

 

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

 

 

 

David E. Sorkin, Panelist

Dated: February 8, 2024