DECISION

 

Robert Half Inc. v. vett jax

Claim Number: FA2403002090711

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Robert Half Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Bianca Ascolese of Foley & Lardner LLP, New York, USA. Respondent is vett jax ("Respondent"), New York, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <roberthalt.com>, 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.

 

Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on March 27, 2024; Forum received payment on March 27, 2024.

 

On March 27, 2024, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <roberthalt.com> 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 ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy").

 

On April 1, 2024, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 22, 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@roberthalt.com. Also on April 1, 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 23, 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. Since its founding in 1948, Complainant has provided its clients with skilled professionals in the fields of accounting and finance, technology, legal, creative, marketing, and administration. Complainant has rights in the ROBERT HALF mark based upon registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") (e.g., Reg. No. 1,156,612, registered on June 2, 1981). 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 and no one else, thereby creating tremendous goodwill and value to Complainant. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark as it merely replaces the letter "F" in the ROBERT HALF mark with the letter "T" and adds the generic top-level domain ("gTLD") ".com."

 

ii) 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 Respondent any rights in the ROBERT HALF mark. Additionally, Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, the disputed domain name resolves to an inactive webpage.

 

iii) Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. The evidence and totality of circumstances in this case clearly show that Respondent "intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users" to the disputed domain name "by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement" of the disputed domain name. Respondent's use of the disputed domain name to resolve to a webpage that is currently inactive, inaccessible, and cannot be reached clearly establishes bad faith use and registration. The evidence and the totality of the circumstances surrounding the use and registration of the disputed domain name undoubtedly demonstrates that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant and its ROBERT HALF mark, and in particular, the well-known ROBERT HALF house mark, before registering the domain name.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent did not submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

1. The disputed domain name was registered on February 6, 2024.

 

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

 

3. The disputed domain name resolves to an inactive webpage.

 

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 based upon registration with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 1,156,612, registered on June 2, 1981). Registration of a mark with the USPTO is sufficient to establish rights under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Complainant has provided evidence of registration of the ROBERT HALF mark with the USPTO. Therefore, the Panel finds Complainant has established rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Complainant contends that the disputed domain name <roberthalt.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant's ROBERT HALF mark because it merely replaces the letter "F" in the ROBERT HALF mark with the letter "T" and adds the generic top-level domain ("gTLD") ".com."  The Panel finds that replacing a single letter and the addition of a gTLD fail to sufficiently distinguish the disputed domain name from Complainant's mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Chevron Intellectual Property LLC v. Carolina Rodrigues / Fundacion Comercio Electronico, FA 2005830 (Forum Aug. 31, 2022) (finding <chevcon.com> similar to the CHEVRON mark because the registration of a domain name that substitutes one letter for another in a trademark does not distinguish the disputed domain name from the mark per 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 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 contends that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name since Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and Complainant has not authorized or licensed to Respondent any rights in the ROBERT HALF mark. WHOIS information may be used to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Coppertown Drive-Thru Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089 (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). In addition, a lack of authorization to use a complainant's mark may also indicate that a respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. See Deutsche Lufthansa AG v. Mohamed elkassaby, FA 1801815 (Forum Sept. 17, 2018) ("The WHOIS lists "Mohamed elkassaby" as registrant of record. Coupled with Complainant's unrebutted assertions as to absence of any affiliation between the parties, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name in accordance with Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)."). The unmasked WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the registrant as "vett jax." There is nothing in the records to suggest that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

Complainant argues that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use as the disputed domain name resolves to an inactive webpage. Complainant provides evidence of the disputed domain name resolving to an inactive webpage. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).

 

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

The Panel notes that the disputed domain name resolves to an inactive webpage. Complainant provides a screenshot showing the disputed domain name resolves to an inactive webpage. The Panel observes that the inactive use of a domain name does not necessarily circumvent a finding that the domain name is being used in bad faith within the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.  See Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003 (finding that in considering whether the passive holding of a domain name, following a bad faith registration of it, satisfies the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(iii), the panel must give close attention to all the circumstances of the respondent's behavior, and a remedy can be obtained under the Policy only if those circumstances show that the respondent's passive holding amounts to acting in bad faith.)

 

The particular circumstances of this case that the Panel has considered are:

 

i) Complainant is one of the world's largest specialized employment staffing agencies. Complainant spends an enormous amount of time, money, and effort in promoting its ROBERT HALF mark. Complainant and its ROBERT HALF marks have been prominently featured in advertisements and promotions throughout the world, including domestic and foreign publications and philanthropic events. Complainant has received many prestigious awards as a result of, in part, its services marketed and rendered under the ROBERT HALF marks. Complainant's extensive efforts to advertise and promote its ROBERT HALF marks have resulted in its services generating significant revenues. As a result of Complainant's extensive revenues, promotions, and awards, the ROBERT HALF marks have become well-known and are associated exclusively with Complainant and no one else, thereby creating tremendous goodwill and value to Complainant; and

 

ii) Respondent has provided no evidence whatsoever of any actual or contemplated good faith use by it of the disputed domain name.

 

Taking into account the circumstances above, the Panel concludes that Respondent's inactive use of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith under Policy, paragraph 4(a)(iii) and that Respondent is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.

 

Complainant further contends Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual or constructive knowledge of Complainant's rights in the ROBERT HALF mark when Respondent registered the disputed domain name. While constructive knowledge is insufficient for a finding of bad faith, worldwide prominence of a mark can demonstrate actual knowledge of a complainant's rights in a mark at registration and show bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See The Am. Auto. Assoc., Inc. v. Zag Media Corp., FA 1226952 (Forum Nov. 13, 2008) ("Mere constructive knowledge is insufficient to support a finding of bad faith."); see also AutoZone Parts, Inc. v. Ken Belden, FA 1815011 (Forum Dec. 24, 2018) ("Complainant contends that Respondent's knowledge can be presumed in light of the substantial fame and notoriety of the AUTOZONE mark, as well as the fact that Complainant is the largest retailer in the field. The Panel here finds that Respondent did have actual knowledge of Complainant's mark, demonstrating bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)."). The Panel infers, due to the notoriety of Complainant's mark as noted above that Respondent registered the disputed domain name with knowledge of Complainant's rights in ROBERT HALF mark, which constitutes bad faith registration per 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 <roberthalt.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq., Panelist

Dated: April 26, 2024