DECISION

 

strongDM, Inc. v. Lisa Adkins

Claim Number: FA2409002117462

 

PARTIES

Complainant is strongDM, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Alyssa Worsham of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, California, USA. Respondent is Lisa Adkins ("Respondent"), Wyoming, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <strongsdm.com>, registered with Spaceship, 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.

 

Richard Hill as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on September 25, 2024; Forum received payment on September 25, 2024.

 

On September 26, 2024, Spaceship, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <strongsdm.com> domain name is registered with Spaceship, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Spaceship, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Spaceship, 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 September 27, 2024, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of October 17, 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@strongsdm.com. Also on September 27, 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 October 18, 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 was founded in 2015 to help organizations manage and audit access to their databases, servers, clusters, and web applications. Complainant is at the forefront of infrastructure access management, providing innovative solutions that cater to the evolving needs of companies transitioning from traditional on-premises setups to complex cloud-based environments. As a leader in the space, Complainant has developed a robust platform that simplifies authentication, authorization, networking, and observation for distributed teams and resources. This platform is designed to integrate seamlessly into DevOps workflows, reinforcing security without impeding productivity. The company's product offerings include the Essentials package, which mirrors the original product capabilities, and the Enterprise package, a more advanced solution tailored for large-scale, distributed systems. Complainant's customer-centric approach is evident in its ease of deployment, intuitive pricing, and compatibility with existing toolsets. Notable clients, including industry giants like Capital One, have placed their trust in Complainant's solutions, underscoring the platform's reliability and effectiveness. Complainant's reputation for excellence is further bolstered by its distinguished board of directors, which includes prominent figures such as Doug Leone of Sequoia Capital, Phil Black of True Ventures, and Godfrey Sullivan, former CEO of Splunk and Hyperion. Their collective experience and guidance have been instrumental in shaping Complainant's strategic direction. As remote work becomes a staple, Complainant's offerings have become increasingly relevant, providing secure, efficient, and scalable access solutions that support the distributed workforce of today and tomorrow. Complainant asserts rights in the mark STRONGDM through its registration in the United States in 2023.

 

Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its STRONGDM mark as it consists of a misspelling of the mark (an extra "s" is added) and merely adds the ".com" generic top-level domain ("gTLD").

 

According to Complainant, Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and is not authorized or permitted to use Complainant's mark. Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use as the disputed domain name redirects to Complainant's legitimate website. The disputed domain name may be used in furtherance of phishing.

 

Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith because the disputed domain name is redirected to Complainant's legitimate website. Respondent has engaged in typosquatting. Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the STRONGDM mark at the time of registration.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant owns the mark STRONGDM and uses it to help organizations manage and audit access to their databases, servers, clusters, and web applications.

 

Complainant's rights in its mark date back to at least 2023.

 

The disputed domain name was registered in 2024.

 

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

 

The disputed domain name is redirected to 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 consists of a misspelling of Complainant's STRONGDM mark (an extra "s" is added) and merely adds the ".com" generic top-level domain ("gTLD"). A change to a mark, such as a minor misspelling, does not negate any confusing similarity between a disputed domain name and a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Wiluna Holdings, LLC v. Zhichao Yang, FA 1804964 (Forum Oct. 1, 2018) ("Misspelling of a complainant's mark, either by adding, removing, or transposing letters, does not sufficiently mitigate any confusing similarity between a disputed domain name and mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)."); see also Bechtel Group, Inc. v. Eliza Dushku, FA 1631725 (Forum Sept. 1, 2015) (finding <betchel.com> confusingly similar to BECHTEL); see also Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Orville Walk, FA 1503047 (Forum July 13, 2013) (finding <exxonmobile.net> confusingly similar to EXXONMOBIL). 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 mark. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name: under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), relevant WHOIS information can be used to determine if a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. See Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Suzen Khan / Nancy Jain / Andrew Stanzy, FA 1741129 (Forum Aug. 16, 2017) (finding that respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names when the identifying information provided by WHOIS was unrelated to the domain names or respondent's use of the same). Here, the WHOIS information for the disputed domain name shows that the registrant's name is "Lisa Adkins". Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

The disputed domain name is redirected to Complainant's legitimate web site. This is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Medline, Inc. v. Domain Active Pty. Ltd., FA 139718 (Forum Feb. 6, 2003) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where the respondent merely redirected the <wwwmedline.com> domain name to the complainant's own website at <medline.com>); see also Mortgage Research Center LLC v. Miranda, FA 993017 (Forum July 9, 2007) ("Because [the] respondent in this case is also attempting to pass itself off as [the] complainant, presumably for financial gain, the Panel finds the respondent is not using the <mortgageresearchcenter.org> domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)."). Thus the Panel finds Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). And the Panel finds that Respondent has no 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, the disputed domain name is redirected to Complainant's legitimate website. This constitutes bad faith use under the Policy. See Bittrex, Inc. v. M D, FA 1878566 (Forum Feb. 14, 2020) ("Redirecting traffic to a complainant's website may constitute bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)); see also D Verizon Trademark Servs. LLC v. Boyiko, FA 1382148 (Forum May 12, 2011) ("The Panel finds that Respondent's registration and use of the confusingly similar disputed domain name, even where it resolves to Complainant's own site, is still registration and use in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)."). Consequently, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith in the sense of the Policy.

 

Further, Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant's mark: the disputed domain name redirects to 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).

 

Finally, by merely adding a letter "s" in Complainant's mark, Respondent engages in typosquatting. A finding of typosquatting can evince bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Adorama, Inc. v. Moniker Privacy Services, FA 1610020 (Forum May 1, 2015) ("Respondent has also engaged in typosquatting, which is additional evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). Respondents who capitalize on common typing errors engage in bad faith registration under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)."). As such, the Panel finds bad faith typosquatting 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 <strongsdm.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Richard Hill, Panelist

Dated: October 18, 2024