DECISION

 

FTI Consulting, Inc. v. Bill Crosby

Claim Number: FA2512002194375

 

PARTIES

Complainant is FTI Consulting, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Sigrid E. Neilson of DLA Piper LLP (US), District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is Bill Crosby ("Respondent"), Indiana, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <fticonsultingusa.com>, (the "Domain Name") registered with Dynadot Inc.

 

PANEL

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

 

Dawn Osborne as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on December 12, 2025; Forum received payment on December 12, 2025.

 

On December 16, 2025, Dynadot Inc confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <fticonsultingusa.com> Domain Name is registered with Dynadot Inc and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Dynadot Inc has verified that Respondent is bound by the Dynadot 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 December 22, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of January 12, 2026 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@fticonsultingusa.com. Also on December 22, 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 January 13, 2026 pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Dawn Osborne 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 the mark FTI CONSULTING registered, inter alia, in the USA for management consultancy services since 2011. It owns <fticonsulting.com>.

 

The Domain Name registered in 2025 is confusingly similar to the Complainant's mark adding only the generic term 'usa' and the gTLD .com which do not prevent said confusing similarity.

 

The Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, is not commonly known by it and is not authorised by the Complainant.

 

The Domain Name has not been used so there is no bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate non commercial fair use.

 

Passive use of a domain name containing a mark with a reputation is registration and use in bad faith.

 

The Respondent has submitted a false name and address for the Domain Name data registration details.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

The Complainant is the owner of the mark FTI CONSULTING registered, inter alia, in the USA for management consultancy services since 2011.

 

The Domain Name registered in 2025 has not been used.

 

The Respondent has submitted a false name and address for the Domain Name data registration details.

 

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 Domain Name consists of the Complainant's FTI CONSULTING mark (registered in the USA for management consultancy services since 2011), adding only the generic term 'usa' and the gTLD .com. 

 

Previous panels have found confusing similarity when a respondent merely adds a generic term to a Complainant's mark. See PG&E Corp. v Anderson, D2000-1264 (WIPO Nov. 22, 2000)(finding that respondent does not by adding common descriptive or generic terms create new or different marks nor does it alter the underlying mark held by the Complainant). The Panel agrees that the addition of the generic term 'usa' to the Complainant's mark does not prevent confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the Complainant's registered trade mark.

 

The gTLD .com does not serve to distinguish the Domain Name from the Complainant's mark which is the distinctive component of the Domain Name. See Red Hat Inc v Haecke FA 726010 (Forum July 24, 2006) (concluding that the redhat.org domain name is identical to the complainant's red hat mark because the mere addition of the gTLD was insufficient to differentiate the disputed domain name from the mark).

 

Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar for the purpose of the Policy to a mark in which the Complainant has rights.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant has not authorised the use of its mark. There is no evidence or reason to suggest the Respondent is, in fact, commonly known by the 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).

 

There has been no use of the Domain Name. See Hewlett-Packard Co. v Shemesh, FA 434145 (Forum April 20, 2005)(Where the panel found inactive use is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy 4(c)(i).)

 

The Respondent has not provided a Response to this Complaint and has not rebutted the prima facie case evidenced by the Complainant as set out herein.

 

As such the Panel finds that the Respondent does not have rights or a legitimate interest in the Domain Name and that the Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

The Respondent has provided false domain name registration details which is bad faith per se. See CNU ONLINE Holdings, LLC v. Domain Admin / Whois Privacy Corp., FA 1614972 (Forum May 29, 2015) ("As the Panel sees that Respondent has provided false or misleading WHOIS information, the Panel finds bad faith in Respondent's registration of the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).").

 

The Domain Name has not been used. Passive holding of a Domain Name containing a trade mark with a reputation does not prevent a finding of registration and use in bad faith under the Policy. See Indiana University v. Ryan G Foo / PPA Media Services, FA 1588079 (Forum Dec. 28, 2014) ("Under the circumstances, Respondent's seemingly inutile holding of the at-issue domain name shows Respondent's bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).").

 

As such, the Panel holds that the Complainant has made out its case that the Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith under Policy 4(b)(iii).

 

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

 

 

 

Dawn Osborne, Panelist

Dated: January 14, 2026