DECISION

 

Haynes and Boone, LLP v. J R

Claim Number: FA2601002199717

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Haynes and Boone, LLP ("Complainant"), represented by Jeffrey M. Becker of Haynes and Boone, LLP, Texas, USA. Respondent is J R ("Respondent"), West Virginia, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <haynseboone.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.

 

Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. 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, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <haynseboone.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 January 19, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 9, 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@haynseboone.com. Also on January 19, 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.

 

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

 

On February 10, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. 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

i) Complainant is a full-service law firm based in Dallas, Texas, maintaining twenty offices around the world. Since 1970, Complainant has provided legal services under its trade name Haynes and Boone, LLP, and the trademarks HAYNES AND BOONE and HAYNESBOONE. Complainant holds rights in the mark HAYNES AND BOONE, inter alia, through its USPTO registration (e.g., Reg. No. 3391606, registered March 4, 2008), and in the mark HAYNESBOONE through its USPTO registration (e.g., Reg. No. 4551768, registered June 17, 2014). As a result of Complainant's prominent use and promotion of its marks, said marks serve to identify and indicate the source of Complainant's legal services to the consuming public, and to distinguish its offerings from those of others. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's HAYNESBOONE mark as it merely misspells the mark by transposing the letters "e" and "s" in "Haynes," creating a misspelling of Complainant's marks.

 

ii) Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Complainant authorized Respondent to use the HAYNESBOONE mark. Respondent's information was originally privacy protected, but ultimately identified Respondent by the initials "J R" in Ridgeley, West Virginia, which appears to be fictitious. Respondent has not used the disputed domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services. The disputed domain name does not resolve to an active website. Instead, Respondent has employed the disputed domain name in an email phishing and fraud scheme targeting Complainant's employees.

 

iii) Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent uses the disputed domain name as part of an email scam whereby it impersonates an employee of Complainant to send fraudulent emails to Complainant's Controller, directing the Controller to divert payments to bank accounts not controlled by Complainant. As evidenced by the fraudulent scam being conducted by Respondent and targeted at Complainant's employees, Respondent possessed actual knowledge of Complainant's rights at the time it registered and began using the disputed domain name, demonstrating that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent did not submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

1. The disputed domain name was registered on January 14, 2026.

 

2. Complainant has established rights in the mark HAYNES AND BOONE, inter alia, through its USPTO registration (e.g., Reg. No. 3391606, registered March 4, 2008), and in the mark HAYNESBOONE through its USPTO registration (e.g., Reg. No. 4551768, registered June 17, 2014).

 

3. The disputed domain name does not resolve to an active website.

 

4. Respondent uses the disputed domain name as part of an email scam whereby Respondent impersonates an employee of Complainant to send fraudulent emails to Complainant's Controller, directing said Controller to divert payments to bank accounts unaffiliated with Complainant.

 

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 asserts rights in the mark HAYNES AND BOONE, inter alia, through its USPTO registration (e.g., Reg. No. 3391606, registered March 4, 2008), and in the mark HAYNESBOONE through its USPTO registration (e.g., Reg. No. 4551768, registered June 17, 2014). Registration with the USPTO generally suffices to establish rights under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Complainant has submitted evidence of these registrations, and the Panel concludes that Complainant has established rights in the HAYNES AND BOONE and HAYNESBOONE marks under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Complainant argues that the disputed domain name <haynseboone.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant's HAYNESBOONE mark as it merely misspells the mark by transposing the letters "e" and "s" in "Haynes," thereby creating a misspelling of Complainant's marks. Misspelling a mark by transposing letters and adding a gTLD to a mark may not sufficiently differentiate the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Ashley Furniture Industries, Inc. v. domain admin / private registrations aktien gesellschaft, FA 1626253 (Forum July 29, 2015) (finding that "Respondent has simply transposed the letters 'u' and 'r' in the term 'furniture' to complete the [<ashleyfurnitrue.com>] domain name."). Thus, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the HAYNESBOONE mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Section 2.1, WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 ("Where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element.").

 

Complainant argues that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name as Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Respondent been authorized by Complainant to use Complainant's mark, and Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant. Relevant information, such as WHOIS information, can be used as evidence to show a respondent is or is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). The Panel notes that the unmasked WHOIS data lists "J R" as the registrant, and there is no evidence in the record to suggest Respondent was authorized to use the mark. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

Complainant asserts that Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, as Respondent has exploited the domain to send emails impersonating Complainant's employees for fraudulent purposes.

 

Using the disputed domain name to impersonate Complainant in furtherance of a phishing scheme does not qualify as a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Abbvie, Inc. v. James Bulow, FA 1701075 (Forum Nov. 30, 2016) ("Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to pose as Complainant's CEO by means of email addresses at the confusingly similar domain name in an attempt to determine Complainant's ability to process a transfer. Using the domain name in this manner is neither a bona fide offering of goods and services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).").

 

The Panel observes from Complainant's evidence, including screenshots of emails, that Respondent used the disputed domain name to contact employees of Complainant, impersonating Complainant's employees to request fraudulent payments. Specifically, Respondent sent emails from the disputed domain name to Complainant's Controller, impersonating one of Complainant's other employees. The Panel finds that Respondent's actions are illegal and malicious, and therefore, do not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).

 

Based on these findings, the Panel determines that Complainant has established a prima facie case regarding Respondent's lack of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. As Respondent has not submitted a response or rebutted the prima facie case in any way, the Panel concludes that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Complainant asserts that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith by impersonating Complainant's employees to divert funds. Registering a confusingly similar domain name to disrupt Complainant's business through phishing schemes constitutes bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Qatalyst Partners LP v. Devimore, FA 1393436 (Forum July 13, 2011) (holding that using a domain name for phishing purposes is evidence of bad faith).

 

As previously noted, Respondent uses the disputed domain name as part of an email scam whereby Respondent impersonates an employee of Complainant to send fraudulent emails to Complainant's Controller, directing said Controller to divert payments to bank accounts unaffiliated with Complainant. The Panel finds that Respondent's phishing activities disrupt Complainant's business and constitute bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).

 

Complainant further contends that Respondent registered the disputed domain name with knowledge of Complainant's rights in the HAYNES AND BOONE and HAYNESBOONE marks, as evidenced by Respondent's impersonation of Complainant in its emails. Phishing schemes involving impersonation of Complainant demonstrate actual knowledge of Complainant's trademark rights, supporting a finding of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Spectrum Brands, Inc. v. Guo Li Bo, FA 1760233 (Forum Jan. 5, 2018) ("[T]he fact Respondent registered a domain name that looked identical to the SPECTRUM BRANDS mark and used it in a phishing scheme shows actual knowledge of Complainant's trademark rights at registration.").

 

The Panel notes that Complainant's HAYNES AND BOONE and HAYNESBOONE marks are widely recognized as representing Complainant, a leader in providing legal services maintaining twenty offices around the world, and as a result of Complainant's prominent use and promotion of its marks since 1970, said marks serve to identify and indicate the source of Complainant's legal services to the consuming public, and to distinguish its offerings from those of others.

 

Given the widespread recognition of Complainant's marks and Respondent's deliberate actions in configuring the disputed domain name to impersonate Complainant's employees, the Panel concludes that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the HAYNES AND BOONE and HAYNESBOONE marks when registering the disputed domain name. This establishes bad faith registration under Policy ¶ 4(a)(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 <haynseboone.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq., Panelist

Dated: February 11, 2026