DECISION

 

Highspot, Inc. v. Host Master / Njalla Okta LLC

Claim Number: FA2502002142331

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Highspot, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Stefan B. Blum of Perkins Coie LLP, Washington, USA. Respondent is Host Master / Njalla Okta LLC ("Respondent"), Saint Kitts and Nevis.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <highspot1.com>, registered with Tucows Domains Inc.

 

PANEL

The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge have no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.

 

Petter Rindforth as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 26, 2025; Forum received payment on February 26, 2025.

 

On February 27, 2025, Tucows Domains Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <highspot1.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 February 28, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 20, 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@highspot1.com. Also on February 28, 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 March 21, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Petter Rindforth 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

The Complainant is the owner of trademark HIGHSPOT, in connection with an industry-leading business analytics and knowledge management software and related goods and services. The trademark has been used since at least as early as March 18, 2014, and is registered as a U.S. trademark No. 4706562. Complain ant also have a registered logo trademark, used in connection with the word mark.

 

The Respondent's registration and use of the disputed domain name <highspot1.com> is an apparent attempt to impersonate Complainant. The disputed domain name is substantially identical to Complainant's HIGHSPOT trademark, the only variance (aside from the gTLD) being the addition of the numeral "1." Further, the website to which the disputed domain name resolves features Complaint's trademark, together with a depiction of Complainant's Logo in the same blue color as Complainant's authentic use on Complainant's Website. The only conclusion is that Respondent intentionally secured the disputed domain name to impersonate Complainant or otherwise to inappropriately leverage Complainant's rights in Complainant's trademark.

 

The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent has no license or authorization to use Complainant's trademark, and is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. In addition, Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, it resolves to a website featuring not only Complainant's trademark, but also Complainant's Logo.

 

The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The use constitutes bad faith use on its face, and also evidences Respondent's clear knowledge of Complainant and Complainant's trademark prior to registration of the disputed domain name.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

The Complainant is the owner of the following U.S. trademark registration:

 

No. 4,706,562 HIGHSPOT (word), registered on March 24, 2015 for goods and services in Intl Classes 9 and 42.

 

Complainant is also the owner of a pure figurative trademark that is used by the Respondent in connection with the word mark HIGHSPOT

 

The disputed domain name <highspot1.com> was registered on December 5, 2024.

 

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 Complainant claims rights to the HIGHSPOT trademark based upon registration with the USPTO. Registration with USPTO sufficiently establishes rights in a trademark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Haas Automation, Inc. v. Jim Fraser, FA 1627211 (Forum Aug. 4, 2015) (finding that Complainant's USPTO registrations for the HAAS mark sufficiently demonstrate its rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)). Complainant provides a copy of its USPTO registration for the HIGHSPOT trademark (e.g., Reg. No. 4,706,562, registered on March 24, 2015). Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the HIGHSPOT trademark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Complainant argues that Respondent's <highspot1.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's HIGHSPOT trademark as the domain name fully incorporates the trademark, merely adding the descriptive number "1", and the gTLD .com. Registration of a domain name that contains a trademark and adds a generic term and a gTLD does not distinguish the domain name from the trademark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent's <highspot1.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's HIGHSPOT trademark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Once the Complainant makes a prima facie case in support of its allegations in respect of the second element of the Policy, the burden shifts to the Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Forum Sept. 25, 2006) ("Complainant must first make a prima facie showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names, which burden is light. If Complainant satisfies its burden, then the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain names."); see also Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm't Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006) (holding that the complainant must first make a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under UDRP ¶ 4(a)(ii) before the burden shifts to the respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in a domain name).

 

Complainant argues that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <highspot1.com> domain name because Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant's  HIGHSPOT trademark. Where a response is lacking, WHOIS information may be used to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Dale Anderson, FA 1613011 (Forum May 21, 2015) (concluding that because the WHOIS record lists "Dale Anderson" as the registrant of the disputed domain name, the respondent was not commonly known by the <statefarmforum.com> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)). Additionally, lack of authorization to use a complainant's trademark may indicate that the respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. See Alaska Air Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines v. Song Bin, FA 1574905 (Forum Sept. 17, 2014) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name as demonstrated by the WHOIS information and based on the fact that the complainant had not licensed or authorized the respondent to use its ALASKA AIRLINES mark). The WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the registrant as "Host Master / Njalla Okta LLC". Therefore, the Panel find that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

As shown by Complainant, Respondent is not using the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Rather, it resolves to a parked web page with Complainant's registered word and figurative trademarks, in combination with dots for "Log in" or "Register", thereby clearly and falsely indicating a connection with the Complainant. Such use can never be the base of legitimate interest.

 

Thus, the Panel find that Respondent does not provide a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

As from the evidence provided by the Complainant (the screen-shot of the web page connected to the disputed domain name) it seems rather obvious that Respondent has set up the disputed domain name to deceive consumers into using the <highspot1.com> webpage to register their personal information, that may well include also financial information, by creating an imitation of Complainant's website – using both the registered word mark as well as the registered figurative mark.  

 

Registration of a confusingly similar domain name with the intent to pass off as a complainant in an attempt to phish for personal information can evince bad faith registration and use per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Bittrex, Inc. v. Wuxi Yilian LLC, FA 1760517 (Forum Dec. 27, 2017) (finding bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where "Respondent registered and uses the <lbittrex.com> domain name in bad faith by directing Internet users to a website that mimics Complainant's own website in order to confuse users into believing that Respondent is Complainant, or is otherwise affiliated or associated with Complainant."). The Panel therefore find that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).

 

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 <highspot1.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Petter Rindforth, Panelist

Dated: April 4, 2025