DECISION

 

Carahsoft Technology Corp. v. Vera Pervuhina

Claim Number: FA2501002134887

PARTIES

Complainant is Carahsoft Technology Corp. ("Complainant"), represented by Miki Motohashi Iino of Millen, White, Zelano & Branigan, P.C., Virginia, USA. Respondent is Vera Pervuhina ("Respondent"), Russia.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <carasoft-web.com>, registered with NameSilo, LLC.

 

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 13, 2025; Forum received payment on January 13, 2025.

 

On January 13, 2025, NameSilo, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <carasoft-web.com> domain name is registered with NameSilo, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameSilo, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameSilo, LLC 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 14, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 3, 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@carasoft-web.com. Also on January 14, 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 February 4, 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 provides information regarding technology products, services and training to federal state, state and local governments, educational institutions and prime contractors. Complainant also provides under the CARAHSOFT mark IT services, a website featuring information in the IT field, technology consultation services and educational services. Complainant's team includes more than 2,000 sales, marketing, customer service and contracting professionals.

 

Complainant's United States trademark registrations constitute presumptive evidence of Complainant's exclusive right to use the subject marks throughout the entire United States. The filing and registration dates of Complainant's U.S. trademark registrations are well-prior to the at-issue domain name's registration date—in one case by over a decade.

 

Complainant is aware that bad actors have registered domain names confusingly similar to Complainant's CARAHSOFT trademark in order to engage in phishing scams. These domains are used to send emails to technology vendors, prime contractors, systems integrators, value-added resellers and channel partners. In some cases, these emails trick victims into providing to the fraudsters personal information and payments.

 

Respondent's at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights. The second-level domain of Respondent's <carasoft-web.com> domain name includes the CARAHSOFT mark except it omits the trademark's "h" and adds "-web". "CARASOFT" is a common or obvious misspelling of the CARAHSOFT mark and constitutes a clear case of "typosquatting."  Minor variations in the complainant's trademark, including adding or removing letters, does not avoid a finding of confusing similarity. The term "web" is generic, and the addition of "-web" to the domain name does nothing to avoid identity and/or confusing similarity. It is well-established that the addition of a gTLD is irrelevant in determining whether a domain name is confusingly similar.

 

Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. Respondent is not known by a name consisting in whole or in part of the wording CARAHSOFT. Respondent also is not an agent or licensee of the Complainant. Respondent's "passive" holding of the at-issue domain name is not indicative of a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor of a non-commercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). The Respondent's concealment of its identity behind a privacy service should also be taken into consideration, and should support a finding that Respondent selected the domain name with the intention to take advantage of the Complainant's registered trademark.

 

Respondent registered and used the at-issue domain name in bad faith. Respondent registered <carasoft-web.com> many years after Complainant had commenced use of the CARAHSOFT trademark and well after it had become well-known and incontestable in United States. Further, this is a clear case of cybersquatting. It is well-settled case law that the practice of typosquatting may in itself be evidence of a bad faith registration of a domain name. Respondent holds the at-issue domain name passively. This too demonstrates Respondent's bad faith. Respondent has hidden its identity behind a privacy shield, suggesting that the domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith, and a finding of bad faith also is required where there is no plausible explanation for the registration of a domain name other than to trade on the goodwill of the complainant.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant has rights in the CARAHSOFT trademark.

 

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 CARAHSOFT.

 

Respondent registered and 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 identical to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.

 

Complainant shows that it has USPTO registrations for its CARAHSOFT trademark. Any of such registrations is sufficient to demonstrate Complainant's rights in in a mark under 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 <carasoft-web.com> domain name consists of a recognizable misspelled version of Complainant's CARAHSOFT trademark where the mark's letter "h" is removed, followed by a hyphen and the generic term "web," with all followed by the ".com" top-level domain name. The differences between Complainant's trademark and Respondent's domain name are insufficient to distinguish one from the other for the purposes of the Policy. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent's <carasoft-web.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's CARAHSOFT trademark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See 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."); see also, 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.")

 

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 <carasoft-web.com> indicates the domain name's registrant is "Vera Pervuhina" and the record before the Panel contains no evidence tending to prove that Respondent is commonly known as <carasoft-web.com>. The Panel therefore concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by the <carasoft-web.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 <carasoft-web.com> domain name is used to host email that facilitates phishing. The domain name host's email that is sent to technology vendors, prime contractors, systems integrators, value added resellers and channel partners that pretend to originate from Complainant's genuine domain name. In some cases and as intended, the emails trick the recipient into providing personal information and payments to Respondent. Such use of the <carasoft-web.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 <carasoft-web.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 scam aimed at defrauding Complainant and its associates. Respondent's email were intent on tricking the recipient into giving up information and/or funds to Respondent. 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)).

 

Moreover, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the CARAHSOFT mark when Respondent registered <carasoft-web.com> as a domain name. Respondent's actual knowledge is apparent from Complainant's notoriety and Respondent's phishing scheme's reliance on impersonating Complainant. Respondent's prior knowledge of Complainant's trademark further shows Respondent's bad faith registration and use of <carasoft-web.com>. See Lemon Inc. v. Sumer Singh, FA 2110519 (Forum September 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 <carasoft-web.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist

Dated: February 4, 2025