DECISION

 

Huron Consulting Group Inc. v. [REDACTED]

Claim Number: FA2601002199616

 

PARTIES

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

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <huronconsulting-us.com>, registered with HOSTINGER operations, UAB.

 

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.

 

Richard Hill as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on January 14, 2026; Forum received payment on January 14, 2026.

 

On January 15, 2026, HOSTINGER operations, UAB confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <huronconsulting-us.com> domain name is registered with HOSTINGER operations, UAB and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. HOSTINGER operations, UAB has verified that Respondent is bound by the HOSTINGER operations, UAB 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 January 15, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 4, 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@huronconsulting-us.com. Also on January 15, 2026, 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 January 26, 2026. Respondent also sent emails to the Forum, see below.

 

On January 26, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Richard Hill 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.

 

PRELIMINARY ISSUE: IDENTITY THEFT

Respondent contends that it has been the victim of identity theft, see below. The Panel has taken the following rules and precedent into account in making a determination on redacting Respondent's identity.

 

According to Policy ¶ 4(j), "[a]ll decisions under this Policy will be published in full over the Internet, except when an Administrative Panel determines in an exceptional case to redact portions of its decision." In Wells Fargo & Co. v. John Doe as Holder of Domain Name <wellzfargo.com>, FA 362108 (Forum Dec. 30, 2004) and Wells Fargo & Co. v. John Doe as Holder of Domain Name <wellsfargossl>, FA 453727 (Forum May 19, 2005), the panels omitted the respondents' personal information from the decisions, pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(j), in an attempt to protect the respondents who claimed to be victims of identity theft from becoming aligned with acts the actual registrants appeared to have sought to impute to the respondents.).

 

However, according to Forum Supplemental Rule 15(b), "All requests pursuant to Policy paragraph 4(j) and Rule 16(b) to have a portion of the decision redacted, must be made in the Complaint, the Response, or an Additional Submission that is submitted before the Panel's decision is published." (emphasis added).  Rule 1 defines "respondent" as "the holder of a domain-name registration against which a complaint is initiated;" and Forum Supplemental Rule 1(d) further defines "the holder of a domain-name registration" as "the single person or entity listed in the WHOIS registration information at the time of commencement." The Panel notes precedent which holds the registrar-confirmed registrant of a disputed domain (per the WHOIS at commencement of the proceeding) the proper respondent, notwithstanding the possibility that said respondent's identity was stolen.  See, e.g., Banco Bradesco S/A v. Gisele Moura Leite, D2014-0414 (WIPO Apr. 30, 2014). 

 

In the instant case, Respondent has requested that its personal information not be shared to the email address listed in the WHOIS. The Panel interprets that request as a request to redact Respondent's name and address, on the grounds that there was identity theft. Consequently, the Panel finds that it is warranted to redact Respondent's name and location from the Panel's decision,

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant states that it 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 provides services to a wide variety of organizations, including healthcare organizations, Fortune 500 companies, leading academic institutions, and medium-sized businesses. Complainant's website is available at <huronconsultinggroup.com>. Complainant asserts rights in the mark HURON CONSULTING GROUP through its registration in the United States in 2016. The mark is well known.

 

Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its HURON CONSULTING GROUP mark because it incorporates the dominant portion HURON CONSULTING of the mark, merely adding a hyphen, the geographic term "US", and the ".com" generic top-level domain ("gTLD"). Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.

 

Complainant alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is neither commonly known by the disputed domain name nor has Complainant authorized Respondent to use its mark. Respondent is not using the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial fair use. Instead, the disputed domain name is not being used. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.

 

Further, says Complainant, Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. The disputed domain name is not being used. Respondent had actual or constructive knowledge of Complainant's mark. The disputed domain name may be used in furtherance of phishing. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.

 

B. Respondent

In its Response, Respondent states, in pertinent part:

I don't own any domain, and I never registered any domain names(s). I never heard about "KDI collections". Phone number [listed in WHOIS] and email address [listed in WHOIS] are not mine. I never registered the domain name "HURONCONSULTING-US.COM". Someone used my personal information without my authorization.

 

In its emails to Forum Respondent states, in pertinent part: "I received the written Notice of complaint today [via post]. I don't own any domain. I never registered any domain name(s)." And: "Seems, someone used my name/address. I never heard about [REDACTED]. The Registrant Phone Number and Registrant Email are not mine." And: "Please do not share any of my personal information with [email listed in WHOIS]. My personal data (name and address) was used fraudulently."

 

FINDINGS

Complainant owns the mark HURON CONSULTING GROUP and uses it to provide consulting services. The mark is well known.

 

Complainant's rights in its mark date back to at least 2016.

 

The disputed domain name was registered in 2025.

 

Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark.

 

The disputed domain name is not being used. The WHOIS information is false.

 

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

The disputed domain name incorporates the dominant portion HURON CONSULTING of Complainant's HURON CONSULTING GROUP mark, merely adding a hyphen and the geographic term "US", together with the ".com" generic top-level domain ("gTLD). Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), such changes are generally not sufficient in distinguishing a domain name from a complainant's prior mark. See ADP, LLC. v. Ella Magal, FA 1773958 (Forum August 2, 2017) ("Respondent's <workforce-now.com> domain name appropriates the dominant portion of Complainant's ADP WORKFORCE NOW mark and adds a hyphen and the gTLD ".com." These changes do not sufficiently distinguish the disputed domain name from the ADP WORKFORCE NOW mark."); see also 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."); see also Vanguard Group Inc. v. Proven Fin. Solutions, FA 572937 (Forum Nov. 18, 2005) (holding that the addition of both the word "advisors" and the gTLD ".com" did not sufficiently alter the disputed domain name to negate a finding of confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)); see also American Farm Bureau Fed'n and Texas Farm Bureau v. Michael Yeates, FA 1432672 (Forum Apr. 12, 2012) ("Complainant asserts that Respondent's <texasfarmbureau.net> domain name is confusingly similar to its FARM BUREAU mark. The Panel finds that Respondent's addition of the geographic term 'texas' fails to distinguish the disputed domain name from Complainant's mark."); see also Home Depot Product Authority, LLC v. Angelo Kioussis, FA 1784554 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("The domain name contains the mark in its entirety, with only the addition of the generic letters 'sb' and the digits '2018,' plus the generic Top Level Domain ("gTLD") '.com.'  These alterations of the mark, made in forming the domain name, do not save it from the realm of confusing similarity under the standards of the Policy."); see also Mrs. World Pageants, Inc. v. Crown Promotions, FA 94321 (Forum Apr. 24, 2000) (finding that punctuation is not significant in determining the similarity of a domain name and mark). Therefore the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use its mark. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name: under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), the Panel may look to the WHOIS information to determine whether Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. See Chevron Intellectual Property LLC v. Fred Wallace, FA 1626022 (Forum July 27, 2015) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <chevron-europe.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), as the WHOIS information named "Fred Wallace" as registrant of the disputed domain name). The WHOIS information on record lists [REDACTED] as the registrant name. Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name.

 

The disputed domain name is not being used. Failure to make an active use of a domain name demonstrates that Respondent is not using the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial fair use. See Bloomberg L.P. v. SC Media Servs. & Info. SRL, FA 296583 (Forum Sept. 2, 2004) ("Respondent is wholly appropriating Complainant's mark and is not using the <bloomberg.ro> domain name in connection with an active website. The Panel finds that the [failure to make an active use] of a domain name that is identical to Complainant's mark is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and it is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)."). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). And the Panel finds that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

As noted above, there has been identity theft. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent did not have a legitimate use in mind when registering the disputed domain name.

 

The disputed domain name is not being used. According to paragraph 3.3 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0): "From the inception of the UDRP, panelists have found that the non-use of a domain name (including a blank or "coming soon" page) would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. While panelists will look at the totality of the circumstances in each case, factors that have been considered relevant in applying the passive holding doctrine include: (i) the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant's mark, (ii) the failure of the respondent to submit a response or to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good-faith use, (iii) the respondent's concealing its identity or use of false contact details (noted to be in breach of its registration agreement), and (iv) the implausibility of any good faith use to which the domain name may be put."

 

In the present case, Complainant's trademark is well known. It is difficult to envisage any use of the disputed domain name that would not violate the Policy, see Morgan Stanley v. TONY / shentony, FA 1637186 (Forum Oct. 10, 2015) ("Respondent registered the disputed domain name [MORGANSTANLEY.ONLINE] in bad faith because . . . it is difficult to envisage any use of the disputed domain name that would not violate the Policy"); see also Singapore Airlines Ltd. v. European Travel Network, D2000-0641 (WIPO Aug. 29, 2000) (where selection of disputed domain name is so obviously connected to complainant's well-known trademark, use by someone with no connection with complainant suggests opportunistic bad faith); see also Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc., Sheraton Int'l IP, LLC, Westin Hotel Mgmt., L.P. v. Jingjing Tang, D2014-1040 (WIPO Aug. 19, 2014) ("The Panel finds that the [WESTIN] Marks are not such that could legitimately be adopted by traders other than for the purpose of creating an impression of an association with Complainant. Thus, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain names were registered in bad faith").

 

Respondent attempted to conceal its identity: the WHOIS information is false, see below. Given these circumstances, the Panel finds that, in this particular case, a finding of bad faith use can be inferred even though the disputed domain name is not being actively used. See Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, D2000-0003 (WIPO Feb. 18, 2000).

 

As noted above, there has been identity theft. That is, the WHOIS information is false. This can indicate bad faith registration and use. See Enterprise Holdings, Inc. v. John Doe, FA 1339545 (Forum Sept., 2010 ) ("The Panel also takes into account that the entity that Responded to the Complaint would not be the registrant of the disputed domain names for the instant proceedings. Therefore, that circumstance is also taken by the Panel as indication of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) by providing false or misleading WHOIS information to the registrar."); see also Video Direct Distribs. Inc. v. Video Direct, Inc., FA 94724 (Forum June 5, 2000) (finding that the respondent acted in bad faith by providing incorrect information to the registrar regarding the owner of the registered name). Accordingly, the Panel finds bad faith registration and use on this ground also.

 

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 <huronconsulting-us.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Richard Hill, Panelist

Dated: January 26, 2026