DECISION

 

Keysight Technologies v. Brain Manager

Claim Number: FA2403002087769

PARTIES

Complainant is Keysight Technologies ("Complainant"), represented by Emily Cooper of Holland & Hart LLP, Colorado, USA. Respondent is Brain Manager ("Respondent"), Texas, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <finance-keysight.com>, registered with GMO Internet Group, Inc. d/b/a Onamae.com.

 

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 March 11, 2024; Forum received payment on March 11, 2024.

 

On March 11, 2024, GMO Internet Group, Inc. d/b/a Onamae.com confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <finance-keysight.com> domain name is registered with GMO Internet Group, Inc. d/b/a Onamae.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GMO Internet Group, Inc. d/b/a Onamae.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the GMO Internet Group, Inc. d/b/a Onamae.com 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 March 12, 2024, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 1, 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@finance-keysight.com. Also on March 12, 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 April 2, 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 name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant states that it is a U.S. based company that manufactures test and measurement equipment and related software focused on the electronics and radio fields. Now its own company, Complainant began as a division within Hewlett-Packard and later Agilent Technologies. With approximately 15,000 employees and more than $5.5 billion in revenue, Complainant serves customers in over 100 countries, with manufacturing and R&D locations across the United States, Europe, and Asia Pacific. All 25 of the top 25 technology companies worldwide use Complainant's products and services, and more than three quarters of the Fortune 100 companies are Complainant's customers. Complainant asserts rights in the KEYSIGHT mark through its registration in the United States in 2015.

 

Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its KEYSIGHT mark because it incorporates the mark in its entirety and merely adds a hyphen, the generic/descriptive term "finance" and the ".com" generic top-level domain ("gTLD"). Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.

 

According to Complainant, Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and Complainant has not authorized or licensed to Respondent any rights in the KEYSIGHT mark. Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, the disputed domain name resolves to an inactive webpage and Respondent uses the disputed domain name in furtherance of a fraudulent email phishing scheme. Specifically, Respondent uses the disputed domain name to send emails passing itself off as Complainant's Chief Financial Officer as part of a spoofing fraud whereby emails originating from Respondent's domain are sent to Complainant's actual customers, instructing them to redirect their invoice payments to a new bank account that belongs to Respondent. The signature block of the fraudulent emails displays Complainant's mark and distinctive logo, and the URL of Complainant's legitimate website. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.

 

Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent uses the disputed domain name in furtherance of a fraudulent email phishing scheme. Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the KEYSIGHT mark. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant owns the mark KEYSIGHT and uses it to market test and measurement equipment.

 

Complainant's rights in its mark date back to 2015.

 

The disputed domain name was registered in 2024.

 

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

 

Respondent uses the disputed domain name in furtherance of a fraudulent email phishing scheme; the signature block of the fraudulent emails displays Complainant's mark and distinctive logo, and the URL of 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 name incorporates Complainant's KEYSIGHT mark in its entirety, merely adding a hyphen and the generic/descriptive term "finance", together with the ".com" generic top-level domain ("gTLD"). Such changes are insufficient to defeat a finding of confusing similarity. See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("Where a relevant trademark is recognisable within a disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element."); see also Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association v. Shi Lei aka Shilei, FA 1784643 (Forum June 18, 2018) ("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 Health Devices Corp. v. Aspen S T C, FA 158254 (Forum July 1, 2003) ("[T]he addition of punctuation marks such as hyphens is irrelevant in the determination of confusing similarity pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)."). Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its KEYSIGHT mark. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name: under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), WHOIS information may be used to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. See Guardair Corporation v. Pablo Palermo, FA1407001571060 (Forum Aug. 28, 2014) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <guardair.com> domain name according to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), as the WHOIS information lists "Pablo Palermo" as registrant of the disputed domain name). Here, the WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the registrant as "Brain Manager". Therefore the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

Complainant presents evidence showing that Respondent uses the disputed domain name in furtherance of a fraudulent email phishing scheme. Specifically, Respondent uses the disputed domain name to send emails passing itself off as Complainant's Chief Financial Officer as part of a spoofing fraud whereby emails originating from Respondent's domain are sent to Complainant's actual customers, instructing them to redirect their invoice payments to a new bank account that belongs to Respondent. This may support a finding of failure to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Microsoft Corporation v. Terrence Green / Whois Agent / Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc., FA 1661030 (Forum Apr. 4, 2016) (finding the respondent's use of the disputed domain names to send fraudulent emails purportedly from agents of complainant to be neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)); see also Enterprise Holdings, Inc. v. I S / Internet Consulting Services Inc., FA 1785242 (Forum June 5, 2018) ("On its face, the use of a domain name that is confusingly similar to the mark of another in order to facilitate a phishing scheme cannot be described as either a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)."). Therefore the Panel finds that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). And the Panel finds that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

 

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 name.

 

Indeed, as already noted, Respondent uses the disputed domain name in furtherance of a fraudulent email phishing scheme. Phishing may in and of itself be considered evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Zoetis Inc. and Zoetis Services LLC v. VistaPrint Technologies Ltd, FA1506001623601 (Forum July 14, 2015) ("Respondent's attempt to use the <zoietis.com> domain name to phish for personal information in fraudulent emails also constitutes bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)."); see also Smiths Group plc v. Snooks, FA 1372112 (Forum Mar. 18, 2011) (finding that the respondent's attempt to impersonate an employee of the complainant was evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)). Thus the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

Further, Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant's mark: the signature block of the fraudulent emails displays Complainant's mark and distinctive logo, and the URL of 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 name and that this constitutes bad faith 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 <finance-keysight.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Richard Hill, Panelist

Dated: April 2, 2024