DECISION

 

Huron Consulting Group Inc. v. Walter Samuel

Claim Number: FA2504002152146

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Huron Consulting Group Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Melissa A. Vallone of Barnes & Thornburg LLP, Illinois, USA. Respondent is Walter Samuel ("Respondent"), Virginia, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <huronconsultinginc.com>, 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.

 

Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on April 23, 2025; Forum received payment on April 23, 2025.

 

On April 24, 2025, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <huronconsultinginc.com> 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 April 25, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of May 15, 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@huronconsultinginc.com. Also on April 25, 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 May 16, 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 Huron Consulting Group Inc. is a worldwide consulting firm assisting clients in diverse industries to, for example, improve performance, comply with complex regulations, reduce costs, recover from distress, leverage technology, and stimulate growth.

 

Complainant uses the marks HURON and HURON CONSULTING GROUP, and various designs and stylizations thereof.

 

Complainant's has rights in the HURON and HURON CONSULTING GROUP marks through such marks' registration with the USPTO as well as with other trademark agencies worldwide. Forum panels have recognized Complainant's rights in Complainant's relevant trademarks.

 

Respondent's at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights. The at-issue domain name incorporates Complainant's well-known HURON and HURON CONSULTING marks in their entirety. The only differences between the at-issue domain name and Complainant's marks are the inclusion of "inc" and the generic top-level domain ".com." These differences do nothing to distinguish the at-issue domain name from Complainant's marks per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the at-issue domain name because Respondent (1) has never been known or referred to as the at-issue domain name and/or any of Complainant's relevant marks or any variation thereof, (2) is not affiliated with, licensed or otherwise authorized by Complainant to use the any of Complainant's trademarks, (3) has not used the at-issue domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, and (4) registered the at-issue domain name using a privacy service to conceal its identity.

 

Respondent registered and is using the at-issue domain name in bad faith because (1) the at-issue domain name is identical and/or confusingly similar to Complainant's trademarks; (2) Respondent had constructive and actual, notice of Complainant's rights to the subject trademarks prior to registering the at-issue domain name, (3) Respondent is not using the at-issue domain name for a legitimate purpose, (4) Respondent engaged in typosquatting, and (5) Respondent could use the at-issue domain name to pass itself off as Complainant by sending fraudulent emails.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant has rights in the HURON and HURON CONSULTING GROUP trademarks.

 

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

 

Respondent registered the at‑issue domain name after Complainant acquired rights in its relevant trademarks.

 

Respondent's <huronconsultinginc.com> domain name addresses a webpage hosting pay-per-click links.

 

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 registration for its HURON CONSULTING GROUP trademarks with the USPTO, as well any of its other registrations for such mark worldwide, is sufficient to demonstrate Complainant's rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Target Brands, Inc. v. jennifer beyer, FA 1738027 (Forum July 31, 2017) ("Complainant has rights in its TARGET service mark for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) by virtue of its registration of the mark with a national trademark authority, the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO").").

 

Respondent's <huronconsultinginc.com> domain name may be characterized as containing  Complainant's HURON CONSULTING GROUP trademark less its domain name impermissible spaces where its "group" term is replace  with "inc." The domain name concludes with the confusing similar analysis-insignificant top-level ".com." The minor differences between Complainant's trademark and the at-issue domain name do nothing to distinguish the domain name from Complainant's mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent's <huronconsultinginc.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark. 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.").

 

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, absent evidence of Policy ¶ 4(c) circumstances Complainant's prima facie showing acts conclusively.

 

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 <huronconsultinginc.com> indicates that "Walter Samuel" is the domain name's registrant and there is nothing in the record showing that Respondent is otherwise known by the <huronconsultinginc.com> domain name. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Coppertown Drive-Thru Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089 (Forum July 17, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <coppertown.com> domain name where there was no evidence in the record, including the WHOIS information, suggesting that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name).

 

Respondent uses <huronconsultinginc.com> to host hyperlinks. Such use 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). See Danbyg Ejendomme A/S v. lb Hansen / guerciotti, FA1504001613867 (Forum June 2, 2015) (finding that the respondent had failed to provide a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name where the disputed domain name resolved to a website that offered both competing hyperlinks and hyperlinks unrelated to the complainant's business).

 

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

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

As discussed below without being exhaustive, Respondent acted in bad faith.

 

First and as mentioned above regarding rights and legitimate interests, Respondent used the at-issue domain name to direct internet users to a webpage displaying links to third-parties. The links presumably benefit Respondent under a pay-per-click arrangement. Such use of the domain name is disruptive to Complainant's business and capitalizes on the confusion that Respondent created between the domain name and Complainant's trademark. Respondent's use of <huronconsultinginc.com> thus shows Respondent's bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Plain Green, LLC v. wenqiang tang, FA 1621656 (Forum July 1, 2015) (finding that the respondent's use of the disputed domain name to feature generic third-party hyperlinks constituted bad faith according to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)); see also, Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company v. Kentech Company LTD, FA 406522 (Forum March 4, 2005) ("[T]he Panel infers that Respondent receives click- through fees for diverting Internet users to competing car rental services. Since Respondent is using a domain name that is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark, consumers searching for Complainant online who access Respondent's domain name may become confused as to Complainant's affiliation with the resulting website. Thus, the Panel finds that Respondent's commercial use of the <carenterprise.com> constitutes bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).").

 

Moreover, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in HURON CONSULTING GROUP when it registered <huronconsultinginc.com> as a domain name. Respondent's prior knowledge of Complainant's trademark rights is evident from the mark's notoriety and from Respondent's inclusion of the dominant portion of Complainant's trademark in Respondent's <huronconsultinginc.com> domain name. Respondent's registration and use of the confusingly similar <huronconsultinginc.com> domain name with knowledge of Complainant's trademark rights in HURON CONSULTING GROUP further shows Respondent's bad faith. See 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 <huronconsultinginc.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist

Dated: May 19, 2025