DECISION

 

Global Name Services LLP v. Brian Kripowicz / Ronald Rubenstein

Claim Number: FA2507002163753

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Global Name Services LLP ("Complainant"), represented by Alberto Zacapa of DLA Piper LLP (US), District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is Brian Kripowicz / Ronald Rubenstein ("Respondent"),  USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES 

The domain names at issue are <dlapiper-it.com> and <usdlapiper-it.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, 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.

 

Alan L. Limbury, as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on July 1, 2025. Forum received payment on July 1, 2025.

 

On July 2, 2025, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <dlapiper-it.com> and <usdlapiper-it.com> domain names are registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. 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 July 7, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 28, 2025 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registrations as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@dlapiper-it.com, postmaster@usdlapiper-it.com. Also on July 7, 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 registrations as technical, administrative and billing contacts.

 

Having received no response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

 

On July 29, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Alan L. Limbury 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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PRELIMINARY ISSUE: MULTIPLE RESPONDENTS

Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules provides that a "complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder". Paragraph 1(d) of the Forum's Supplemental Rules defines "The Holder of a Domain Name Registration" as "the single person or entity listed in the registration information, as verified by the Registrar, at the time of commencement" and sub-paragraph 1(d)(i) provides that a Complainant wishing to make an argument for a single Respondent having multiple aliases must comply with Supplemental Rules 4(c) and 17(a)(i).

 

Complainant has shown that the <dlapiper-it.com> and <usdlapiper-it.com> domain names are effectively controlled by the same person and/or entity, which is operating under several aliases.

 

Hence this decision refers to Brian Kripowicz / Ronald Rubenstein as "Respondent". 

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant, Global Name Services LLP, is the intellectual property holding company for the well-known law firm operating in more than 40 countries under the registered trademarks DLA PIPER and DLA PIPER & Design. Complainant operates the website at "www.dlapiper.com".

 

The domain names <dlapiper-it.com> and <usdlapiper-it.com> are nearly identical and confusingly similar to the DLA PIPER marks.

 

Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the domain names. Complainant has no business relationship with Respondent and has not licensed or otherwise permitted Respondent to use the DLA PIPER marks, nor to apply for any domain name incorporating the marks. Moreover, because Complainant owns exclusive rights in the DLA PIPER marks, including multiple United States federal trademark registrations, Respondent cannot establish legitimate rights or interests in the domain names. 

 

The domain names resolve to active websites that make unauthorized use of the DLA PIPER marks and contain contact forms intended to deceive users and impersonate Complainant. Therefore, Respondent is not using the domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, or in connection with a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Respondent's use of the domain names appears to be exclusively for the purpose of defrauding consumers through email communications using email addresses at the domain names.

 

Respondent registered and is using the domain names in bad faith to disrupt Complainant's business. In light of the notoriety of Complainant's DLA PIPER marks and the coined nature of the DLA PIPER name, it is inconceivable that Respondent registered the domain names without actual knowledge of Complainant's DLA PIPER marks. Respondent is using the domain names in bad faith to impersonate a real DLA Piper employee and Senior IT Technician with the name Mr. Ronald Rubenstein in fraudulent email communications with the aim of obtaining personal and confidential information from unsuspecting victims.

 

Thus, on information and belief, the domain names were intentionally registered to mislead third parties in an attempt to defraud them, steal credentials, and hijack accounts through the impersonation of Complainant's employee. This creates a high security risk for both Complainant, its employees, clients, and countless third parties, which constitutes bad faith under the Policy. It is clear that Respondent registered and is using the domain names to attract and subsequently defraud third parties that may have obtained legal services from Complainant, or otherwise engaged in business with Complainant, and to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of its website pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant has established all the elements entitling it to relief.

 

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

Complainant has shown that it has rights in the DLA PIPER mark, namely USPTO Registration No. 3,214,009, registered on February 27, 2007 for providing legal services to others, in International Class 42.

 

It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the Complainant's trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview 3.0, ¶ 1.7.

 

The Panel finds Respondent's <dlapiper-it.com> and <usdlapiper-it.com> domain names to be confusingly similar to Complainant's DLA PIPER mark, only differing by the addition to the mark of a hyphen and the abbreviation "it" and, in the case of the <usdlapiper-it.com> domain name, the addition of the abbreviation "us", which are insufficient to distinguish the domain name from Complainant's DLA PIPER mark. The inconsequential ".com" generic top-level domain ("gTLD") may be ignored under this element. See, for example, Rollerblade, Inc. v. Chris McCrady, D2000-0429 (WIPO June 25, 2000).

 

Complainant has established this element.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy sets out three illustrative circumstances as examples which, if established by Respondent, shall demonstrate rights to or legitimate interests in the domain names for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, i.e.

 

(i)         before any notice to Respondent of the dispute, the use by Respondent of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain names or names corresponding to the domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or

 

(ii)         Respondent (as an individual, business or other organization) has been commonly known by the domain names, even if Respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or

 

(iii)         Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain names, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert customers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.

 

The <dlapiper-it.com> and <usdlapiper-it.com> domain names were registered respectively on April 9 and 29, 2025, many years after Complainant has shown that its DLA PIPER mark had become very well-known. The <dlapiper-it.com> domain name resolves to a website headed "DLA PIPER IT Transforming Business Trough Technology". The <usdlapiper-it.com> domain name resolves to a website headed "USDA PIPER IT Empowering Your IT Experience". Both websites have a "Contact Us" page.

 

Complainant has provided no evidence of Respondent's alleged fraudulent email communications. Nevertheless, these circumstances, together with Complainant's assertions, are sufficient to constitute a prima facie showing of absence of rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain names on the part of Respondent. The evidentiary burden therefore shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the <dlapiper-it.com> and <usdlapiper-it.com> domain names. See Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014). Respondent has made no attempt to do so.

 

The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain names.

 

Complainant has established this element.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out four illustrative circumstances, which, though not exclusive, shall be evidence of the registration and use of the domain names in bad faith for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, including:

 

(iv)                      by using the domain names, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent's website or location or of a product or service on its website or location.

 

The circumstances set out above in relation to the second element satisfy the Panel that Respondent was fully aware of Complainant's DLA PIPER mark when Respondent registered the <dlapiper-it.com> and <usdlapiper-it.com>  domain names and that Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent's websites, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark as to the source of Respondent's websites and of the services promoted on those websites. This demonstrates registration and use in bad faith to attract users for commercial gain under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).

 

Complainant has established this element.

 

DECISION

Complainant having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <dlapiper-it.com> and <usdlapiper-it.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Alan L. Limbury, Panelist

Dated: July 30, 2025