DECISION

 

McDonald Hopkins LLC v. lorin bless

Claim Number: FA2404002094575

 

PARTIES

Complainant is McDonald Hopkins LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Matthew J. Cavanagh of McDonald Hopkins LLC, Ohio, USA. Respondent is lorin bless ("Respondent"), Florida, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <mcdonaldshopkin.com>, (the "Domain Name") registered with Realtime Register B.V.

 

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.

 

Dawn Osborne as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on April 24, 2024; Forum received payment on April 24, 2024.

 

On April 25, 2024, Realtime Register B.V. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <mcdonaldshopkin.com> Domain Name is registered with Realtime Register B.V. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Realtime Register B.V. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Realtime Register B.V. 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 29, 2024, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of May 20, 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@mcdonaldshopkin.com. Also on April 29, 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 formal response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

 

On May 21, 2024 pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Dawn Osborne 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

The Complainant is the owner of the trade mark MCDONALD HOPKINS, registered, inter alia, in the USA for legal services with first use recorded as 2000.

 

The Domain Name registered in 2024 is confusingly similar to the Complainant's mark, merely moving the letter 's' and adding the gTLD .com which is not enough to prevent confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the Complainant's mark.

 

Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name and has not been authorised by the Complainant to use the Complainant's mark. The Respondent is impersonating the Complainant by typosquatting. The Domain Name is being pointed to a hosting parked page and so there is no bona fide offering of goods or services or non commercial legitimate and fair use. Impersonating the Complainant by typosquatting is bad faith with actual knowledge of the Complainant's rights. The Domain Name has been configured for e mail and the Complainant is concerned about possible phishing. 

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a formal Response in this proceeding.

 

C. Additional Submissions

On April 29, 2024, Forum received an email from Respondent stating:

 

Thanks for advising, we apologize for any inconvenience this might have caused we will have the domain deleted .. 

 

FINDINGS

The Complainant is the owner of the trade mark MCDONALD HOPKINS, registered, inter alia, in the USA for legal services with first use recorded as 2000.

 

The Domain Name registered in 2024 has been pointed to a hosting parked page.

 

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 Domain Name consists of a sign confusingly similar to the Complainant's MCDONALD HOPKINS mark (registered in the USA for legal services with first use recorded as 2000) merely moving the letter 's' and adding the gTLD .com.

 

The Panel agrees that misspellings such as transposition, here the moving of a letter 's', does not prevent confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the Complainant's trade mark pursuant to the Policy. See Capital One Financial Corp. v. Huang Li Technology Corp c/o Dynadot, FA 1620197 (Forum June 16, 2015) (finding confusing similarity where the respondent misspelled the word "bank" by transposing the letters "a" and "n," attached the gTLD ".com," and eliminated spacing with respect to the CAPITAL ONE BANK mark to create the <capitalonebnak.com> domain name.)

 

The gTLD .com does not serve to distinguish the Domain Name from the Complainant's mark. See Red Hat Inc v Haecke FA 726010 (Forum July 24, 2006) (concluding that the redhat.org domain name is identical to the complainant's red hat mark because the mere addition of the TLD was insufficient to differentiate the disputed domain name from the mark).

 

Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar for the purposes of the Policy with a mark in which the Complainant has rights.

 

As such the Panel holds that Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been satisfied.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant has not authorised the use of a sign confusingly similar to its mark. There is no evidence or reason to suggest the Respondent is, in fact, commonly known by the Domain Name. See Alaska Air Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines v. Song Bin, FA1408001574905 (Forum September 17, 2014) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name as demonstrated by the WHOIS information and based on the fact that the complainant had not licensed or authorized the respondent to use its ALASKA AIRLINES mark).

 

The Domain Name has been pointed to a parking page. Not using a Domain Name for an active web site does not show a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate non commercial fair use for the purposes of the Policy. See Wahl Clipper Corporation v. Theresa W Chavez, FA2111001973154 (Forum December 14, 2021) When Respondent is not using a disputed domain name in connection with an active website, the Panel may find that Respondent is not using the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services. [...]

 

The Domain Name also appears to be intended as a typosquatting registration. Typosquatting is an indication of a lack of rights or a legitimate interests. See Chegg Inc. v. yang qijin, FA1503001610050 (Forum Apr. 23, 2015) ("Users might mistakenly reach Respondent's resolving website by misspelling Complainant's mark. Taking advantage of Internet users' typographical errors, known as typosquatting, demonstrates a respondent's lack of rights or legitimate interests under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).").

 

As such the Panelist finds that the Respondent does not have rights or a legitimate interest in the Domain Name and that the Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

The Domain Name is a typosquatting registration. Typosquatting itself is evidence of relevant bad faith registration and use and disruption of the Complainant's business. See Diners Club int'l Ltd. v Domain Admin ****** It's all in the name ******, FA 156839 (Forum June 23, 2003) (registering a domain name in the hope that Internet users will mistype the Complainant's mark and be taken to the Respondent's site is registration and use in bad faith). Typosquatting also indicates the Respondent had knowledge of the Complainant and its rights. See InfoSpace, Inc. v. Greiner, FA 227653 (Forum Mar. 8, 2004) ("Such a domain name evidences actual knowledge of the underlying mark prior to the registration of the domain name, and as Respondent failed to submit any evidence to counter this inferrence [sic], Respondent's actions evidence bad faith registration of the disputed domain name.").

 

As such, the Panelist believes that the Complainant has made out its case that the Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith and has satisfied the third limb of the Policy under para 4(b)(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 <mcdonaldshopkin.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Dawn Osborne, Panelist

Dated: May 22, 2024