DECISION

 

Robert Half Inc. v. Anna Olive

Claim Number: FA2411002124019

PARTIES

Complainant is Robert Half Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Emily Ostreich of Foley & Lardner LLP, New York, USA. Respondent is Anna Olive ("Respondent"), Texas, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <roberlhalf.net>, 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 November 8, 2024; Forum received payment on November 8, 2024.

 

On November 8, 2024, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <roberlhalf.net> 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 November 11, 2024, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of December 2, 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@roberlhalf.net. Also on November 11, 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 December 3, 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 among the world's largest specialized employment staffing agencies. Since its founding in 1948, Complainant has provided skilled professionals in fields such as accounting, finance, technology, legal, creative, marketing, and administration. Complainant holds rights in the ROBERT HALF mark through its registration with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 1,156,612, registered June 2, 1981). Due to Complainant's significant revenues, promotions, and industry recognition, the ROBERT HALF mark has become well-known and is exclusively associated with Complainant, creating substantial goodwill and value. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark as it merely replaces the letter "T" in the ROBERT HALF mark with the letter "L" and adds the gTLD ".net."

 

ii) Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name, nor has Complainant authorized or licensed any rights in the ROBERT HALF mark to Respondent. The disputed domain name is not used for any bona fide offering of goods or services or for legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, it resolves to an inactive webpage hosting generic hyperlinks that redirect Internet users to third-party websites, presumably for Respondent's commercial gain.

 

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. Respondent uses the confusingly similar disputed domain name to resolve to a webpage containing pay-per-click hyperlinks to third-party websites and is otherwise inactive. Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant and its ROBERT HALF marks, particularly the well-known ROBERT HALF house mark. At a minimum, Respondent was placed on constructive notice of Complainant's claim of exclusive rights in its ROBERT HALF marks.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent did not submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

1. The disputed domain name was registered on October 8, 2024.

 

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

 

3. The disputed domain name resolves to a website displaying hyperlinks related to Complainant and third-party websites across various industries, including links such as "Robert Half Jobs," "ATS Tool for Recruitment," and "Sales AI Companies."

 

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 on its registration with the USPTO. Registration of a mark with the USPTO is sufficient to establish rights under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Complainant provides evidence of its USPTO registration for the ROBERT HALF mark through its registration with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 1,156,612, registered June 2, 1981). As a result, the Panel finds that Complainant has established rights in the ROBERT HALF mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Complainant further contends that the disputed domain name <roberlhalf.net> is confusingly similar to its ROBERT HALF mark because it replaces the letter "T" in ROBERT HALF with the letter "L" and appends the ".net" gTLD. The Panel agrees that substituting one character in a mark and adding a gTLD does not sufficiently differentiate a disputed domain name from the original mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Chevron Intellectual Property LLC v. Carolina Rodrigues / Fundacion Comercio Electronico, FA 2005830 (Forum Aug. 31, 2022) (finding <chevcon.com> confusingly similar to the CHEVRON mark because substituting one letter in the mark does not avoid confusing similarity). Therefore, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's ROBERT HALF 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 Section 2.1, WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 ("Where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element.").

 

Complainant argues that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name as Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Respondent been authorized by Complainant to use Complainant's mark, and Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant. Relevant information, such as WHOIS information, can be used as evidence to show a respondent is or is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). The Panel notes that the WHOIS data lists "Anna Olive" as the registrant, and there is no evidence in the record to suggest Respondent was authorized to use the mark. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

Complainant asserts that Respondent does not use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, as the domain name resolves to a webpage hosting generic hyperlinks that redirect Internet users to third-party websites, presumably for Respondent's commercial gain. Previous panels have determined that using a confusingly similar domain name to display related or unrelated links does not establish a bona fide offering of goods and services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See Constellation Wines U.S., Inc. v. Tex. Int'l Prop. Assocs., FA 948436 (Forum May 8, 2007) (holding that the respondent lacked rights or legitimate interests under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or 4(c)(iii) by operating a website with links to goods and services unrelated to the complainant). See also State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. ICS INC., FA 1532398 (Forum Dec. 31, 2013) (finding no bona fide offering or legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or 4(c)(iii) where the domain name resolved to a parked page with click-through links unrelated to the complainant).

 

Complainant has submitted a screenshot showing the disputed domain name resolving to a page with hyperlinks to third-party websites across various industries, such as "ATS Tool for Recruitment" and "Sales AI Companies," as well as a Complainant-related website, "Robert Half Jobs." The Panel concludes that diverting Internet users searching for Complainant to related or unrelated third-party websites does not qualify as a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.

 

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

Complainant contends that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith, as 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. Complainant asserts that Respondent uses the confusingly similar disputed domain name to resolve to a webpage containing pay-per-click hyperlinks to third-party websites and is otherwise inactive. The Panel notes that Complainant provides a screenshot of the disputed domain name's resolving webpage, which features hyperlinks to third-party websites across various industries, such as "ATS Tool for Recruitment" and "Sales AI Companies," as well as a Complainant-related website, "Robert Half Jobs."

The Panel finds that redirecting Internet users seeking Complainant to related or unrelated third-party websites, through which Respondent presumably gains commercially, disrupts Complainant's business. Consequently, the Panel concludes that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) or (iv). See Dovetail Ventures, LLC v. Klayton Thorpe, FA 1625786 (Forum Aug. 2, 2015) (holding that the respondent acted in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) by using the disputed domain name to host a variety of hyperlinks unrelated to the complainant's business, generating commercial gain for the respondent).

 

Complainant further argues that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant and its ROBERT HALF marks, particularly the well-known ROBERT HALF house mark. At a minimum, Respondent was placed on constructive notice of Complainant's claim of exclusive rights in its ROBERT HALF marks. While constructive knowledge alone is insufficient for finding bad faith, the global recognition of a mark can indicate actual knowledge at registration, showing bad faith under Policy paragraph 4(a)(iii). See The Am. Auto. Assoc., Inc. v. Zag Media Corp., FA 1226952 (Forum Nov. 13, 2008) ("Mere constructive knowledge is insufficient for finding 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 given the substantial fame and notoriety of the AUTOZONE mark... The Panel finds that Respondent did have actual knowledge, indicating bad faith registration and use under Policy paragraph 4(a)(iii).").

 

The Panel infers that, due to the widespread recognition of Complainant's mark, the manner in which the disputed domain name was configured by merely replacing a letter in Complainant's mark, and Respondent's redirection of the domain to Complainant-related websites, Respondent registered the disputed domain name with knowledge of Complainant's rights in the ROBERT HALF mark, constituting bad faith registration under Policy paragraph 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 <roberlhalf.net> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq., Panelist

Dated: December 5, 2024