DECISION

 

Massachusetts Institute of Technology v. Kevin Hanlon

Claim Number: FA2505002155305

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Massachusetts Institute of Technology ("Complainant"), represented by Jeanette Eriksson of FairWinds Partners LLC, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is Kevin Hanlon ("Respondent"), represented by James P. Howe of Howe Law Offices, Rhode Island, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <mit.mortgage>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.

 

PANEL

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

 

Francine Siew Ling Tan as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on May 13, 2025; Forum received payment on May 13, 2025.

 

On May 13, 2025, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <mit.mortgage> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, 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 May 16, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of June 9, 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@mit.mortgage. Also on May 16, 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.

 

A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on June 9, 2025.

 

Complainant's Additional Submission was received and determined to be complete on June 10, 2025.

 

On June 11, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Francine Siew Ling Tan 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.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

The Complainant, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, commonly referred to as "MIT", is one of the most famous universities in the world. Founded in 1859, its researchers have gained worldwide recognition for working on varied projects relating to computers, radar, real estate, finance technologies, inertial guidance, and many other areas. Students from across the world attend MIT either at its main campus in Cambridge, Massachusetts or through one of the many partnerships with other universities around the world. As of 2023, 100 Nobel laureates, 60 National Medal of Science recipients, 30 National Medal of Technology and Innovation winners, 81 MacArthur Fellows, 34 astronauts, 16 Turing award winners, and many more, have been affiliated with MIT.

 

Complainant is also involved with, and associated with, matters relating to mortgages provided to MIT members and others, real estate finance and mortgage securitization, credit and lending classes since as early as 1940.

 

Complainant uses diverse channels such as print advertisements and brochures, online ads, social media, competitions, sponsorships, and the like to promote its educational and other services, and associated MIT merchandise. It also maintains a website at www.MIT.edu which is used by applicants, students, faculty, suppliers, and others. It also uses the MIT.edu address for much of its email communications.

 

Complainant's trademark registrations include:

 

-       U.S. trademark registration No. 1,500,620 for MIT, registered on August 16, 1988; 

 

-       U.S. trademark registration No. 1,502,243 for M.I.T., registered on August 30, 1988;

 

-       U.S. trademark registration No. 1,562,643 for MIT, registered on October 24, 1989;

 

-       U.S. trademark registration No. 3,045,569 for an "MIT" design mark ("Complainant's Logo"), registered on January 17, 2006; and

 

-       European Union trademark registration No. 010111391 for MIT, registered on December 24, 2015.

 

The disputed domain name is identical to Complainant's distinctive MIT trade mark. Respondent registered the disputed domain name long after Complainant registered its MIT mark and long after the MIT mark had become well known. The addition of the ".mortgage" generic Top-Level Domain ("gTLD") does not alleviate confusion with Complainant's MIT trade mark.

 

Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in respect of the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name or the term "MIT". Respondent is not bona fide offering goods and services and has not been authorized by Complainant to use the MIT trade mark.

 

Respondent's intention has been to falsely imply association or affiliation with Complainant and its globally well-established reputation. Prior to Complainant's representative sending infringement notifications to Respondent via the registrar's contact registrant form, the disputed domain name resolved to a website template with placeholder texts prominently displaying a lookalike of Complainant's Logo at the top of the website. The color scheme, design and text display next to the logo intentionally mimicked Complainant's Logo.

 

After Complainant notified Respondent of the dispute, Respondent removed the logo from the website of the disputed domain name and replaced it with a similar logo with a different color scheme. After further notifications of infringement, Respondent removed the lookalike of Complainant's Logo from his website. The words "Massachusetts Institute of Technology" were also replaced with "Mortgage Information Technologies".

 

Internet users looking for information on any of Complainant's mortgage, technology or financing related content, technology or offerings who found Respondent's website would be confused and think that they were visiting a legitimate site of Complainant until they realize that the site is a third-party site that is unrelated to Complainant. The phone number listed on the website belongs to ApplicationLeads.com, a lead-generation service. Respondent's address matches that shown under "Sales" at the ApplicationLeads.com website. 

 

Despite being several years old, the disputed domain name still merely resolves to a website template without any actual content. Furthermore, there is a Mail Exchange (MX) record associated with disputed domain name, which indicates that Respondent has or intends to use it for fraudulent email communications.

 

The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Bad faith registration and use are obvious as Respondent intentionally sought to cause confusion with Complainant's MIT mark. The look-alike version of Complainant's Logo on Respondent's website and the fame and distinctiveness of Complainant's MIT trade mark makes it wholly implausible that Respondent independently and innocently registered the disputed domain name. The fact that Respondent made alterations to the website content and added a disclaimer of affiliation after Complainant sent its initial demand letter does not cure its violation of the Policy. Any claim by Respondent that "MIT" is an abbreviation for anything else is not believable. The fact that the MX records for the disputed domain name are configured is further evidence of bad faith as it may indicate a probability that it will be used in connection with further impersonation activity, or even spam/phishing or other activity that would be considered bad faith. Respondent did not respond to Complainant's communications, and its cease-and-desist letters. This is also indicative of bad faith.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent contends that he has gone to extreme lengths to ensure that the domain name not be confusingly similar or identical to the Complainant's trademark, including (a) purchasing the gTLD ".mortgage", which is specific to Respondent's industry, (b) always referencing the full corporate name of "Mortgage Information Technology", and never "MIT", and (c) when the placeholder logo used by a third party website development company was similar to the Complainant's Logo, he immediately remedied the issue and notified Complainant.

 

Respondent claims that "Mortgage Information Technologies" has been an established U.S. business since January 2016, initially as an LLC and since 2024 functioning as a registered corporation. Respondent claims that he used the parked disputed domain name and email addresses corresponding to the dispute domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. He also claims that he has been and is commonly known by the abbreviation "MIT", along with 11 other email addresses. He also alleges that only after he engaged the services of a website development firm to create/update his website with current and relevant information relative to its business by the abbreviation as identified in domain name did Complainant object to use of the disputed domain name.

 

The disputed domain name was registered as a direct reflection and

accurate representation of "Mortgage Information Technologies Inc"

and by avoiding confusing domain name extensions, the domain name is being used in good faith. At no time was the disputed domain name registered for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring it to any party. It was also not registered to prevent Complainant from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name and, Respondent has not engaged in a pattern of such conduct. Complainant and the Respondent are not competitors and/or the disputed domain name was not registered by Respondent to disrupt Complainant's business. The disputed domain name was not registered by Respondent in an intentional attempt to attract for commercial gain, internet users to Respondent's website or by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent's website, location or of a product or service on Respondent's web site or location.

 

C. Additional Submissions

Respondent's rationale for acquiring and using the disputed domain name and its claimed intended use appears to be evolving. In his Response, Respondent stated that "Mortgage Information Technologies Inc." was established since January 2016 and has been functioning since 2024. However, no evidence of its creation in 2016 was furnished. Further, no evidence of Respondent's relationship to "Mortgage Information Technologies Inc." was tendered. The company registration and email addresses mentioned by Respondent remain undefined with no explanation. There is also no evidence of actual plans to use, or actual use of, the disputed domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services have been provided, nor any credible explanation given to the use of a lookalike of Complainant's famous Logo on Respondent's website.  

 

It has been held by previous panels that the mere registration of a company does not in itself give a respondent rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name. A Google search for "Mortgage Information Technologies Inc." reveals nothing relating to Respondent. A Google search for Respondent's name does not generate any results indicating that Respondent is not in any way commonly known by "MIT", "MIT.mortgage", or "Mortgage Information Technologies Inc.".

 

Respondent aims to seek shelter behind several unsupported and incomplete claims that entirely fails to provide Respondent with right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name as required by the Policy, and is insufficient in remedying its clear breach of the Policy. Notably, the Respondent fails to address his association with ApplicationLeads.com, a lead generating service. It specifically states on <applicationleads.com> that "Our mortgage applications are generated from websites at the top of the search rankings, and are proven to close at a higher ratio then leads obtained further down the search results page. Consumers will be more responsive on the phone since they have NOT been bombarded with phone calls. They have submitted their Mortgage Application and are waiting for that one return call, YOURS!". Respondent is in the business of specifically identifying creative ways in which to attract internet traffic, and to instill a sense of legitimacy and trust in such attracted web traffic, for its own financial gain – whether directly, or indirectly. Whatever workarounds or unsupported statements provided by the Respondent in its Response, it fails to rebut, or even address, this obvious fact.

 

Respondent claims that the lookalike version of Complainant's Logo on Respondent's website was placed on the site by a "3rd party website development company", which is another unsupported statement. He also claims that his response to Complainant's cease and desist letters supposedly confirmed the removal of the Complainant' Logo by notifying "Complainant (Massachusetts Institute of Technology Licensing Office)". Complainant states that not only is the explanation of the logo unbelievable, the mere change to the website of the disputed domain name after having been put on notice does not cure its violation. Further, his explanation of not responding to any of the actual cease and desist letters, but by allegedly notifying Complainant's "Licensing Office" makes little to no sense.

 

Respondent does not deny prior knowledge of the Complainant or its famous trade mark and even a simple Google search for "mortgage information technology MIT" yields results which overwhelmingly refer to Complainant and its MIT Mark. Complainant's prima facie case has not been rebutted.

 

FINDINGS

(a)       The disputed domain name is identical to the trade mark MIT in which Complainant has rights.

 

(b)       Respondent has no legitimate rights or interests in respect of the disputed domain name.

 

(c)       The disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

 

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.

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

Complainant has established it has rights in the MIT trade mark. The entirety of Complainant's MIT trade mark is incorporated into the disputed domain name.

 

The generic Top-Level Domain ".mortgage" is a technical requirement of domain name registrations and not relevant to the issue of whether the domain name in dispute is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant's trade mark. (WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.11.1.)

        

The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is identical to Complainant's MIT trade mark.

 

Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has therefore been established.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Panel finds that Complainant has established a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. There is no evidence that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. Complainant has not authorized Respondent's use of its MIT trade mark and the registration of a domain name containing said trade mark.

 

Accordingly, the burden of production of the existence of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name shifts to Respondent. Policy ¶ 4(c) sets out examples of circumstances in which a respondent may demonstrate it has rights or legitimate interests in a domain name. None of these have been demonstrated by Respondent.

 

Respondent has not provided evidence that he is commonly known by the disputed domain name. Respondent states in the Response filed that the corporate entity, "Mortgage Information Technologies Inc. "has been an established U.S. business since January 2016, initially as an LLC and since 2024 functioning as a registered corporation", and that Respondent "used the 'parked' domain name (specifically email addresses corresponding to the domain name) in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services". Respondent further stated that "The Respondent has been and is commonly known by the abbreviation as identified in domain name including 11 individual emails addresses", and "Only after the Respondent engaged the services of website development firm to create/update parked website with current and relevant information relative to its business by the abbreviation as identified in domain name did complainant object to use of domain." 

 

Respondent has not furnished evidence of his assertions or in support of any alleged use. Respondent tendered a Certificate of Incorporation dated December 27, 2024, but provided no evidence of any prior use of the name "Mortgage Information Technologies, Inc. 

 

Panel finds that Respondent has failed to provide relevant evidence and to rebut Complainant's prima facie case. There is nothing which convinces the Panel that Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

 

Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has therefore been established.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

The Panel is persuaded in this case and following the finding of Respondent's absence of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, that the domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The policy aim of the UDRP is to address situations where a registrant of a domain name takes unfair advantage of or otherwise abuses a complainant's trade mark. In this case, the Panel finds it highly implausible that Respondent was unaware of Complainant's MIT trade mark at the time of registering the disputed domain name. The Panel finds it just as implausible that Respondent was not seeking to imply an affiliation with Complainant. Evidence of Respondent's bad faith registration and use can be seen from the incorporation of the term "MIT" in the disputed domain name, the prominent and liberal use of a logo that was almost identical to Complainant's Logo, and the use of the Complainant's full name alongside the look-alike logo on Respondent's website.

 

The Panel is persuaded that the circumstances of this case fall squarely within Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) which states that evidence of a respondent's registration and use of a domain name in bad faith can be found by a panel to be present when a respondent intentionally attempts to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the respondent's web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the respondent's web site or location or of a product or service on your web site or location.

 

Considering the circumstances in totality, including Respondent's knowledge of Complainant's and its trade marks, the distinctiveness of Complainant's registered trade marks, Respondent's particular usage of the disputed domain name to pass itself off as Complainant, or as an affiliate of Complainant, and failure of Respondent to present a credible evidence-backed rationale for registering the domain name (see WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0, section 3.1.1), the Panel concludes that Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith.

 

Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has therefore been established.

 

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 <mit.mortgage> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Francine Siew Ling Tan, Panelist

Dated: June 22, 2025