DECISION

 

Havtech Group, LLC v. accountsreceivable e / havteech

Claim Number: FA2501002133996

PARTIES

Complainant is Havtech Group, LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Stephenie Yeung of Offit Kurman, P.A., New York, USA. Respondent is accountsreceivable e / havteech ("Respondent"), California, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <havteech.com>, registered with Tucows Domains 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.

 

Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on January 7, 2025; Forum received payment on January 7, 2025.

 

On January 8, 2025, Tucows Domains Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <havteech.com> domain name is registered with Tucows Domains Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Tucows Domains Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Tucows Domains 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 January 9, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of January 30, 2025 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@havteech.com. Also on January 9, 2025, 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 January 31, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Paul M. DeCicco 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 contends in part as follows:

 

Complainant is a well-recognized provider of commercial HVAC equipment, building automation systems, and service and energy solutions for customers since its establishment in 1983. Due to its continuous use in commerce for nearly 40 years, Complainant had attained common law rights in the mark HAVTECH prior to its registration.

 

Complainant is the owner of a trademark registration in the United States for the mark HAVTECH for Retail store services featuring HVAC systems, etc. Complainant is owns the <havtech.com> domain name and has owned it for more than 20 years.

 

Respondent, through its Registrar, registered the <havteech.com> domain name on or about December 13, 2024.

 

Respondent's domain name is virtually identical to Complainant's trademark. Specifically, Respondent's <havteech.com> domain name is a misspelling of Complainant's mark with the mere addition of the gTLD ".com." Such subtle misspellings do not distinguish Respondent's domain name from Complainant's mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. The at-issue domain name was registered long after Complainant gained renown. Complainant has not consented to or otherwise authorized the use of HAVTECH or any other term by Respondent. Nor is there anything to suggest Respondent is commonly known by the <havteech.com> domain name. HAVTECH is a term coined by Complainant that has no meaning other than as Complainant's trademark and business name. Respondent has not made any use of or made any demonstrable preparations to use the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Specifically, the at-issue domain does not resolve to a working website at all. Rather, attempts to access <havteech.com> returns that an empty page cannot be reached. Three days after Respondent registered the domain name, a customer of Complainant's received an email allegedly from Complainant's Accounts Receivable asking if it would be "possible to set [Havtech] up for electronic payment via ACG going forward as it is a more secure and reliable means of payment. The sender further offered to "forward [Havtech's] updated ACH payment info." While at a glance the email looked to be from Complainant's Accounts Receivable department, upon closer examination, the "mail-to" address pointed to the at-issue domain (accountsreceivable@havteech.com) rather than Complainant's domain. Upon the customer's response, another suspect email attaching what purported to be Havtech's ACH information was sent to the customer. These fraudulent emails purported to be from one who is a Senior Accounts Receivable Specialist, with whom the customer had previously corresponded using Complainant's genuine email address. Respondent sent the email in an effort to obtain financial gain from Complainant, with no legitimate purpose for doing so. The email requests emanating from <havteech.com> constitute attempts at phishing. Use of a domain name for the purposes of phishing information for the Respondent's own purposes is not bona fide use of a domain name.

 

Respondent registered and used the at-issue domain name in bad faith. Respondent has used a false name – accountsreceivable e – as the information given to the WHOIS database. Providing false information at the time of a domain name's registration may be evidence of Respondent's bad faith registration and use under Policy 4(a)(iii). At the time that Respondent registered the domain name, Respondent knew that Complainant had rights in the mark HAVTECH. Respondent's typosquatting and the impersonation efforts as evidenced by the emails originating from an email address containing the <havteech.com> domain name is evidence that Respondent is aware of Complainant's rights in the mark HAVTECH and is attempting a phishing scheme. Respondent's impersonation of Complainant's employee seeks to perpetuate a fraud on Complainant's customers and is in opposition to Complainant's business and constitutes bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). By appropriating Complainant's mark in the at-issue domain name and impersonating Complainant's employee, Respondent has created a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark fostering the assumption that the email sent with Respondent's domain is from Complainant, not just somehow sponsored or endorsed by Complainant. Respondent's activities evidence bad faith use and registration pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). To date, there is no active website at the at-issue domain name. Lacking an overt good faith basis to register and use the confusingly similar domain name, Respondent's passive holding of the disputed domain name <havteech.com> is further evidence that Respondent registered and is using the domain name in bad faith. Respondent's typosquatting use of the at-issue domain to impersonate Complainant in email messages as part of a fraudulent scheme is evidence of bad faith under the Policy. Additionally, Respondent's registration of the domain name with a registrar whose privacy service redacts all contact information by default without an alternate contact link raises a rebuttable presumption of bad faith.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant has trademark rights in the HAVTECH mark.

 

Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and had not been authorized to use Complainant's trademark in any capacity.

 

Respondent registered the at‑issue domain name after Complainant acquired rights in the HAVTECH trademark.

 

Respondent used the at-issue domain name to facilitate an email based phishing scheme.

 

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 at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.

 

Complainant's USPTO registration for HAVTECH is sufficient to demonstrate Complainant's rights in a mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Home Depot Product Authority, LLC v. Samy Yosef / Express Transporting, FA 1738124 (Forum July 28, 2017) (finding that registration with the USPTO was sufficient to establish the complainant's rights in the HOME DEPOT mark).

 

Respondent's <havteech.com> domain name contains a recognizable misspelled version of Complainant's HAVTECH trademark where an extra letter "e" is inserted into the mark and all is followed by the ".com" top level domain. The differences between the at-issue domain name and Complainant's trademark are insufficient to distinguish one from the other for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent's <havteech.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's HAVTECH trademark. See Acme Lift Company, L.L.C. v. VistaPrint Technologies Ltd, FA 1607039 (Forum Apr. 11, 2015) (stating, "Where a respondent has created a domain name in an effort to visually deceive Internet users via a simple misspelling (and when such misspellings are visually similar to the mark), a finding of confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) is appropriate."); 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.").

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

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. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm't Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006). Since Respondent failed to respond, Complainant's prima facie showing acts conclusively.

 

Respondent lacks both rights and legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant's trademark in any capacity and, as discussed below, there are no Policy ¶ 4(c) circumstances from which the Panel might find that Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. 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)").

 

The WHOIS information for <havteech.com> indicates the domain name's registrant is "accountsreceivable e / havteech" and the record before the Panel contains no evidence tending to prove that Respondent is commonly known as <havteech.com>. The Panel therefore concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by the <havteech.com> domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Braun Corp. v. Loney, FA 699652 (Forum July 7, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain names where the WHOIS information, as well as all other information in the record, gave no indication that the respondent was commonly known by the domain names, and the complainant had not authorized the respondent to register a domain name containing its registered mark).

 

Respondent's <havteech.com> domain name is used to host email pretending to come from one of Complainant's actual employees. Respondent's sham email is designed to deceive its recipient regarding the email's source and ultimately to have the email's recipient direct funds intended for Complainant to an account controlled by Respondent. Such use of the <havteech.com> domain name indicates neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), nor a non-commercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iv). See Microsoft Corporation v. Terrence Green / Whois Agent / Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc., FA 1661030 (Forum Apr. 4, 2016) (finding the respondent's use of the disputed domain names to send fraudulent emails purportedly from agents of complainant to be neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)).

 

Given the forgoing, Respondent lacks rights and lacks legitimate interests in respect of <havteech.com>.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

As discussed below without being exhaustive, there is evidence that leads the Panel to find that Respondent acted in bad faith pursuant to the Policy.

 

As noted above regarding rights and legitimate interests, Respondent used the at-issue domain name in connection with an email based scheme intent on defrauding Complainant and its customer. Respondent's bogus email impersonated an employee of Complainant so that Respondent may then trick the email's recipient into sending Respondent funds that were actually meant for Complainant. Respondent's use of the domain name to afford an email address to facilitate fraud and interfere with Complainant's business shows Respondent's bad faith registration and use of the at-issue domain name under Policy¶ 4(b)(iii) and Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Abbvie, Inc. v. James Bulow, FA 1701075 (Forum Nov. 30, 2016) ("Respondent uses the <abbuie.com> domain name to impersonate Complainant's CEO. Such use is undeniably disruptive to Complainant's business and demonstrates bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii), and/or Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)"); see also Microsoft Corporation v. Terrence Green / Whois Agent / Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc., FA 1661030 (Forum Apr. 4, 2016) (finding the Respondent's use of the disputed domain names to send fraudulent emails supported a finding of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)).

 

Next, Respondent engages in typosquatting. Respondent's domain name contains an intentional misspelling of Complainant's trademark where an extra letter "e" is inserted into the mark. Typosquatting, in itself, indicates bad faith registration and use of Respondent's at-issue domain name. See Computerized Sec. Sys., Inc. v. Hu, FA 157321 (Forum June 23, 2003) (finding that the respondent engaged in typosquatting, which is evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)).

 

Moreover, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the HAVTECH mark when Respondent registered <havteech.com> as a domain name. Respondent's actual knowledge is apparent from Complainant's notoriety and Respondent's phishing scheme's reliance on stealing the identity of one of Complainant's employees. Respondent's prior knowledge of Complainant's trademark further shows Respondent's bad faith registration and use of <havteech.com>. See Lemon Inc. v. Sumer Singh, FA 2110519 (Forum Sept. 5, 2024 ("registration of a disputed domain name with actual knowledge of another's trademark rights is sufficient to establish bad faith, and can be shown by the notoriety of the mark and the use the Respondent makes of the disputed domain name"); see also, Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name); 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).

 

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 <havteech.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist

Dated: February 3, 2025