DECISION

 

HRB Innovations, Inc. v. Registration Private / Domains By Proxy, LLC

Claim Number: FA2404002091997

 

PARTIES

Complainant is HRB Innovations, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Timothy J. Feathers of Stinson LLP, Missouri, USA. Respondent is Registration Private / Domains By Proxy, LLC ("Respondent"), Arizona, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <hrblock.ai> ("Domain Name"), registered with 1API GmbH.

 

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.

 

Nicholas J.T. Smith as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on April 5, 2024; Forum received payment on April 5, 2024.

 

On April 18, 2024, 1API GmbH confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <hrblock.ai> domain name is registered with 1API GmbH and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. 1API GmbH has verified that Respondent is bound by the 1API GmbH 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 22, 2024, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of May 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@hrblock.ai. Also on April 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 Nicholas J.T. Smith 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 is the intellectual property rights holder of a group of companies that since 1955 have provided tax preparation services under the H&R BLOCK mark. Complainant has rights in the H&R BLOCK mark through its trademark registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") (e.g., Reg. No. 3,338,962, registered November 20, 2007). Respondent's <hrblock.ai> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's H&R BLOCK mark, merely removing the ampersand and adding the ".ai" country-code top-level domain ("ccTLD").

 

Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <hrblock.ai> domain name. Respondent is not, and has never been, commonly known by the Domain Name. Additionally, Respondent fails to use the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, Respondent's Domain Name resolves to a blank webpage.

 

Respondent registered and uses the <hrblock.ai> domain name in bad faith. Respondent inactively holds the Domain Name and uses a privacy service to hide its identity.  Additionally, Respondent registered the Domain Name with knowledge of Complainant's rights in the H&R BLOCK mark. 

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant holds trademark rights for the H&R BLOCK mark.  The Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant's H&R BLOCK mark.  Complainant has established that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the use of the Domain Name and that Respondent registered and has used the Domain Name 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 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 has rights in the H&R BLOCK mark based on registration with the USPTO (e.g. Reg. No. 3,338,962, registered November 20, 2007). Registration of a mark with the USPTO sufficiently confers a complainant's rights in a mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Target Brands, Inc. v. jennifer beyer, FA 1738027 (Forum July 31, 2017) ("Complainant has rights in its TARGET service mark for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) by virtue of its registration of the mark with a national trademark authority, the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO").").

 

The Panel finds that the <hrblock.ai> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's H&R BLOCK mark as it fully incorporates the H&R BLOCK mark (other than the ampersand that cannot be reproduced in a domain name), removes the spaces between the words and adds the ".ai" ccTLD. These changes are insufficient to distinguish the Domain Name from the H&R BLOCK mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Russell & Bromley Limited v. KIM H. SUK, FA 1729773 (Forum June 12, 2017) (finding respondent's <russellandbromley.com> domain name identical to complainant's RUSSEL & BROMLEY mark, because "[t]he ampersand is a prohibited character in a domain name so there is no difference between the ampersand (in the mark) and the word 'and' (in the domain name)"); 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.").

 

The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant alleges that Respondent holds no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. In order for Complainant to succeed under this element, it must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the Domain Name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm't Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006) and AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Forum Sept. 25, 2006) ("Complainant must first make a prima facie showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names, which burden is light. If Complainant satisfies its burden, then the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain names."). The Panel holds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case.

 

Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name as Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name, nor has Complainant authorized Respondent to use the H&R BLOCK mark. Respondent has no relationship, affiliation, connection, endorsement or association with Complainant. WHOIS information can help support a finding that a respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, especially where a privacy service has been engaged. See State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Dale Anderson, FA 1613011 (Forum May 21, 2015) (concluding that because the WHOIS record lists "Dale Anderson" as the registrant of the disputed domain name, the respondent was not commonly known by the <statefarmforum.com> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)); see also Kohler Co. v. Privacy Service, FA 1621573 (Forum July 2, 2015) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) where "Privacy Service" was listed as the registrant of the disputed domain name).  The WHOIS lists "Registration Private / Domains By Proxy, LLC" as registrant of record. Coupled with Complainant's unrebutted assertions as to absence of any affiliation or authorization between the parties, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name in accordance with Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

The Domain Name is inactive and there is no other evidence of any intention to use the Domain Name for any purpose, be it a bona fide offering or legitimate non-commercial use. In the absence of any additional evidence (none available in the present case) inactive holding of a disputed domain name is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Kohler Co. v xi long chen, FA 1737910 (Forum Aug. 4, 2017) ("Respondent has not made a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the domain.  Respondent's <kohler-corporation.com> resolves to an inactive webpage displaying the message "website coming soon!").  

 

The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

It is unclear when the Domain Name was registered but the Panel finds on the balance of probabilities that at that time Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's H&R BLOCK mark. The Complainant has used the H&R BLOCK mark since 1955 and has a significant reputation in the mark. Furthermore, there is no obvious explanation, nor has one been provided, for an entity to register a domain name that is essentially identical to the H&R BLOCK mark (a mark that consists of two elements which combined together have no ordinary meaning in the English language) other than to take advantage of Complainant's reputation in the H&R BLOCK Mark. In the absence of rights or legitimate interests of its own this demonstrates registration in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

The Panel notes that Complainant does not make any arguments that would fall under Policy ¶ 4(b). However, these arguments are merely illustrative rather than exclusive to support a finding of bad faith.  See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Domain Admin - This Domain is For Sale on GoDaddy.com / Trnames Premium Name Services, FA 1714157 (Forum Mar. 8, 2017) (determining that Policy ¶ 4(b) provisions are mere illustrative of bad faith, and that the respondent's bad faith may be demonstrated by other allegations of bad faith under the totality of the circumstances).  It is well accepted that the elements of Policy ¶ 4(b) are not exclusive and that Panels may consider all of the circumstances of a given case, including passive holding, in making its bad faith analysis.  See Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, Case No. D2000-0003 (WIPO Feb. 18, 2000) (after considering all the circumstances of a given case, it is possible that a "[r]espondent's passive holding amounts to bad faith."); Regions Bank v. Darla atkins, FA 1786409 (Forum June 20, 2018) ("Respondent registered and is using the domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) because Respondent uses the domain name to host an inactive website."). 

 

Respondent has, without alternative explanation (or active use), registered a domain name that is almost identical to the H&R BLOCK mark. Inactive holding of a domain name can be evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) and, after considering the totality of the circumstances and in the absence of any Response or other explanation for such inactivity by the Respondent  (or any possible good faith use of the Domain Name by Respondent), the Panel finds that this inactive holding of the Domain Name amounts to use in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied 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 <hrblock.ai> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Nicholas J.T. Smith, Panelist

Dated: May 14, 2024