DECISION

 

Robert Half Inc. v. MEI WANG

Claim Number: FA2402002084818

PARTIES

Complainant is Robert Half Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Emily Ostreich of Foley & Lardner LLP, New York, USA. Respondent is MEI WANG ("Respondent"), China.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <roberthalf.shop>, registered with Dynadot 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.

 

Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 21, 2024; Forum received payment on February 21, 2024.

 

On February 21, 2024, Dynadot Inc confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <roberthalf.shop> domain name is registered with Dynadot Inc and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Dynadot Inc has verified that Respondent is bound by the Dynadot 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 February 22, 2024, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 13, 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@roberthalf.shop. Also on February 22, 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 March 14, 2024, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. 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

i) Complainant is one of the world's largest specialized employment staffing agencies. Continuously and exclusively since 1948, Complainant has used ROBERT HALF as a trademark in connection with Complainant's various professional staffing and consulting services. Complainant has rights in the ROBERT HALF mark, inter alia, through its registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") (e.g., Reg. No. 1,156,612 registered June 2, 1981). The disputed domain name is essentially identical to Complainant's ROBERT HALF mark as it incorporates Complainant's mark in its entirety merely adding the ".shop" gTLD.

 

ii) Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Complainant authorized or licensed Respondent to use its ROBERT HALF mark in the disputed domain name. Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for any bona fide offerings of goods or services, nor any legitimate noncommercial or fair use. The disputed domain name resolves to a parked webpage that offers the domain name for sale for the price of $1,450.

 

iii) Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain names in bad faith. Respondent is not currently making any legitimate, active use of the disputed domain name given that the domain name resolves to a parked webpage that offers the domain name for sale for the price of $1,450. Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the mark.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent did not submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

1. The disputed domain name was registered on December 15, 2023.

 

2. Complainant has established rights in the ROBERT HALF mark through its registration of the mark with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 1,156,612 registered June 2, 1981).

 

3. The disputed domain name resolves to a parked webpage that offers the domain name for sale for the price of $1,450.

 

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

Complainant claims rights in the ROBERT HALF mark through its registration with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 1,156,612 registered June 2, 1981). Registration with the USPTO is generally sufficient in demonstrating rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Since Complainant provides evidence of the trademark registration, the Panel finds Complainant has established rights in the ROBERT HALF mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is essentially identical to Complainant's ROBERT HALF mark as it incorporates Complainant's mark in its entirety merely adding the ".shop" gTLD. The Panel finds the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) as it incorporates Complainant's mark in its entirety and merely adds the ".shop" gTLD.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)); see also Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) ("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.").

 

Complainant argues that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Complainant authorized or licensed Respondent to use its ROBERT HALF mark in the disputed domain name. Under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), where a response is lacking, relevant WHOIS Information may demonstrate that a Respondent is not commonly known by a disputed domain name. See Google LLC v. Bhawana Chandel / Admission Virus, FA 1799694 (Forum Sep. 4, 2018) (concluding that Respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name where "the WHOIS of record identifies the Respondent as "Bhawana Chandel," and no information in the record shows that Respondent was authorized to use Complainant's mark in any way."). The WHOIS of record identifies Respondent as "MEI WANG," and nothing in the record rebuts Complainant's assertion that it never authorized or licensed Respondent to use its ROBERT HALF mark in the disputed domain name. Therefore, the Panel finds Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

Complainant argues that Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for any bona fide offerings of goods or services, nor any legitimate noncommercial or fair uses. Complainant contends that the domain name resolves to a parked webpage that offers it for sale for the price of $1,450. Complainant provides a screenshot of the disputed domain name's resolving website. The Panel notes that the use of the disputed domain name which is confusingly similar to Complainant's well-known mark to sell it for the amount of out-of-pocket expense does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or any legitimate non-commercial or fair use. See Securian Financial Group, Inc. v. Carolina Rodrigues / Fundacion Comercio Electronico, FA 2075487 (Forum January 10, 2024) ("The Panel notes that the use of the disputed domain name which is confusingly similar to Complainant's well-known mark to sell it for the amount of out-of-pocket expense does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or any legitimate non-commercial or fair use.").  

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case that arises from the considerations above. All of these matters go to make out the prima facie case against Respondent. As Respondent has not filed a Response or attempted by any other means to rebut the prima facie case against it, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Complainant argues that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith as Respondent is not making any legitimate current, active use of the disputed domain name given that the domain name resolves to a parked webpage that offers it for sale for the price of $1,450. The Panel finds that a general offer for sale may be sufficient to establish registration and use in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Arris Enterprises LLC v. Milen Radumilo, FA 2072536 (Forum Dec. 28, 2023) ("Respondent is offering to sell the disputed domain name, and a general offer for sale may be sufficient to establish registration and use in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). Further, the offer is for a price far in excess of the out-of-pocket registration fee. An offer to sell a disputed domain name with an inflated price may act as further evidence of bad faith registration and use."); see also Vanguard Trademark Holdings USA LLC v. Wang Liqun, FA 1625332 (Forum July 17, 2015) ("A respondent's general offer to sell a disputed domain name for an excess of out-of-pocket costs is evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(i).").

 

The Panel recalls that Complainant provides a screenshot of the disputed domain name's resolving website showing that the disputed domain name resolves to a parked webpage that offers the domain name for sale for the price of $1,450. The Panel concludes that the offer is for a price far in excess of the out-of-pocket registration fee, and Respondent's general offer for sale for a price far in excess of the out-of-pocket registration fee of the disputed domain name, which is confusingly similar to Complainant's well-known mark, constitutes bad faith registration and use.

 

Complainant further argues that Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant's mark. Per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii), actual knowledge may be proven through a totality of circumstances surrounding the registration of the disputed domain names. See Google Inc. v. Ahmed Humood, FA 1591796 (Forum Jan. 7, 2015) ("This Panel makes that inference; Respondent has actual knowledge of Complainant's mark at the time of domain name registration based on the fame of Complainant's GOOGLE mark and Respondent's use of one of the disputed domain names to detail Internet domain name registration and maintenance services related to an in competition with Complainant."). The Panel notes that as a result of Complainant's extensive revenues, promotions and awards, the ROBERT HALF mark has become well-known and is associated exclusively with Complainant. The Panel infers, due to the notoriety of Complainant's mark and the manner of use of the disputed domain name, i.e., general offer for sale for a price far in excess of the out-of-pocket registration fee that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the ROBERT HALF mark when it registered the disputed domain name, thereby supporting a finding of bad faith registration 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 <roberthalf.shop> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq., Panelist

Dated: March 17, 2024