DECISION

 

Gordon Research Conferences v. Christoph Reinhart

Claim Number: FA2408002109968

PARTIES

Complainant is Gordon Research Conferences ("Complainant"), represented by H. Straat Tenney of Locke Lord LLP, New York, USA. Respondent is Christoph Reinhart ("Respondent"), Massachusetts, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <registration-grc.org>, registered with Automattic Inc.

 

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.

 

Héctor Ariel Manoff as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on August 6, 2024; Forum received payment on August 6, 2024.

 

On August 6, 2024, Automattic Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <registration-grc.org> domain name is registered with Automattic Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Automattic Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Automattic 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 August 8, 2024, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 28, 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@registration-grc.org. Also on August 8, 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 August 29, 2024, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Héctor Ariel Manoff 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

1- Complainant offers educational and seminar services under the GORDON RESEARCH CONFERENCES trademark as from 1948 and with GRC trademark as from 1996.

2- Complainant owns GRC and GORDON RESEARCH CONFERENCES trademarks worldwide.

3- Complainant owns the <grc.org> domain name, which resolves to Complainant's website.

4- Respondent registered the disputed domain name <registration-grc.org> on May 31, 2024.

5- The disputed domain name is nearly identical and confusingly similar to Complainant's GRC trademark, it only adds the term "registration." Not only is "registration" generic but is also descriptive of Complainant's services.

6- Respondent registered the domain name without authorization, knowledge or consent of Complainant.

7- Respondent uses the domain name in bad faith in emails to impersonate Complainant.

8- Respondent uses the registered GORDON RESEARCH CONFERENCE mark in the from line, the registered GRC mark in the subject lines, and features Complainant's GRC (stylized) Logo and Complainant's genuine domain <grc.org> in the signature block.

9- Respondent is not a licensee of Complainant, nor is it authorized to use any of the GRC Marks.

10- Respondent registered the disputed domain name five days after the Panelist ordered domain name <grcregistrations.org> be transferred to Complainant in an almost identical case.

11- Respondent has never been commonly known by the Domain Name

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant, Gordon Research Conferences, offers educational services, seminars, training services, and printed educational materials under GRC and GORDON RESEARCH CONFERENCES trademarks at least from 1996. Complainant owns several trademark registrations worldwide. Complainant owns the <grc.org> domain name, which resolves to Complainant's website. Respondent registered the confusing domain name <registration-grc.org> on May 31, 2024 and is using it 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

The Panel finds that the disputed domain name <registration-grc.org> is nearly identical and confusingly similar to Complainant's GRC marks and Complainant's <grc.org> domain name, in which Complainant has rights. (Annex B).

 

The disputed domain name <registration-grc.org> incorporates Complainant's GRC mark and adds the generic term "registration" along with the generic top-level domain ("gTLD") ".com".

 

The Panel finds that the term GRC refers to the other Complainant's trademark GORDON RESEARCH CONFERENCE and that it is clear that Respondent knew it belonged to Complainant. Complainant's main services are educational and seminar services in which a registration is necessary. Respondent has added to the GRC combination of letters the word "registration" when registering the domain name.

 

Respondent has just added a generic word which is related to the services identified by Complainant's trademark. The Panel finds that the domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark since the additional elements are not sufficiently distinctive. (See Microsoft Corporation v. Thong Tran Thanh, FA 1653187 (Forum Jan. 21, 2016) (determining that confusing similarity exists where [a disputed domain name] contains Complainant's entire mark and differs only by the addition of a generic or descriptive phrase and top-level domain, the differences between the domain name and its contained trademark are insufficient to differentiate one from the other for the purposes of the Policy); see also, Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("Where a relevant trademark is recognizable 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").

 

The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical and confusingly similar to GRC mark, in which Complainant has rights, 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").

 

The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <registration-grc.org> domain name because Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use the GRC mark. See Emerson Electric Co. v. golden humble / golden globals, FA 1787128 (Forum June 11, 2018) ("lack of evidence in the record to indicate a respondent is authorized to use [the] complainant's mark may support a finding that [the] respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)").

 

WHOIS information does not suggest that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. This Panel finds that Respondent has never been commonly known by the domain name.

 

In addition, Respondent has neither filed a response nor submitted evidence to prove that Respondent has any trademark rights in the <registration-grc.org> domain name.

 

The evidence submitted by Complainant shows that Respondent's use of the <registration-grc.org> domain is not a bona fide offering of goods. (Annex C). Respondent has included the GRC (stylized) Logo and slogan for use on an email sent to lead the consumers into confusion (Annex C).

 

Respondent has never made any use of the disputed domain name.

 

This Panel agrees with Complainant that Respondent is not using the domain names in connection with a legitimate noncommercial use or fair use under Policy 4(c)(iii).

 

Therefore, the Panel agrees that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names and does not have legitimate interest under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

The domain registration by Respondent was done after Complainant's domain name and trademarks had been registered and first use in commerce had started.

 

The <registration-grc.org> domain name was registered by including the exact mark and by adding a generic term related to Complainant's services of interest.

 

Respondent registered a domain name incorporating Complainant's registered marks without authorization and is using them for a commercial website that attempts to pass off as Complainant, and possibly for other fraudulent purposes. Such circumstances are indicative of bad faith registration and use under the Policy. See Societe des Produits Nestle S.A. v. shoaib Nawaz / Study - Claim Number: FA2406002102206.

 

The Panel finds bad faith in these two circumstances.

 

In addition, according to the evidence provided by Complainant (Annex C), Respondent uses the disputed domain name and reproduces Complainant's GRC marks and the logo and <grc.org> domain name in direct-to-consumer solicitations to deceive consumers. See Annex C.

 

Respondent's e-mail claims to be from Complainant and its signature on the e-mail includes GRC (stylized) Logo and Complainant's <grc.org> domain.

 

It is a clear bad faith use. See Lockheed Martin Corporation v. OFFICE ROLLS, FA1512001651015 (Forum December 30, 2015), (holding that "Respondent's registration of a domain name obviously intended to create confusion with Complainant, together with its use of that domain name in connection with a fraudulent scheme involving email messages attempting to defraud Complainant or its vendors by exploiting that confusion, is indicative of bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(iv)… The Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and has been used in bad faith".).

 

The Panel determines that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in 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 <registration-grc.org> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

__________________________________________________________________

 

 

Héctor Ariel Manoff, Panelist

Dated: September 11, 2024