DECISION

 

Guidehouse LLP v. michelle taylor

Claim Number: FA2602002205911

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Guidehouse LLP ("Complainant"), represented by Bruce A. McDonald of SMITH, GAMBRELL & RUSSELL LLP, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is michelle taylor ("Respondent"), New Hampshire, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <guidehouselnc.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.

 

Alan L. Limbury, as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 18, 2026. Forum received payment on February 18, 2026.

 

On Feb 18, 2026; Feb 19, 2026, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <guidehouselnc.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 February 23, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 16, 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@guidehouselnc.com. Also on February 23, 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 March 17, 2026, 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 name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant, Guidehouse LLP, is a leading global provider of consulting services to businesses and government entities. It owns trademark registrations for the famous GUIDEHOUSE mark in many countries. Since 2018 it has operated the website at "www.guidehouse.com".

 

Respondent's <guidehouselnc.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark.

 

Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <guidehouselnc.com> domain name. Respondent is not using the domain name for any good or service; is not known by the domain name; and is making no legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the name. Instead, the domain name is being used to impersonate Complainant in order to defraud potential employees.

 

Respondent registered and is using the <guidehouselnc.com> domain name in bad faith. Typo-squatting and combo-squatting Complainant's famous mark is evidence of bad faith and indicates that Respondent had knowledge of Complainant and its rights. Respondent is engaged in a criminal enterprise to defraud the public by impersonating Complainant and its representatives by targeting Complainant's well-known trademark.

 

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 3.1 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 service mark GUIDEHOUSE, including USPTO Registration No. 5,723,735, registered on April 9, 2019 for inter alia business and business management consulting and advisory services in a wide range of fields, in International Class 35.

 

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 3.1, ¶ 1.7.

 

The Panel finds Respondent's <guidehouselnc.com> domain name to be confusingly similar to Complainant's GUIDEHOUSE mark, only differing by the addition of letters "lnc", a misspelling of the abbreviation "inc", which is insufficient to distinguish the domain name from Complainant's mark. The inconsequential ".com" generic top-level domain ("gTLD") may be ignored under this element. See 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 provides that any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be proved based on its evaluation of all evidence presented, shall demonstrate Respondent's rights or legitimate interests to a domain name for purposes of Paragraph 4(a)(ii):

 

(i)                      before any notice to Respondent of the dispute, the use by Respondent of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name 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 name, 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 name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert customers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.

 

The <guidehouselnc.com> domain name was registered on January 11, 2026, several years after the registration of Complainant's GUIDEHOUSE mark. It does not resolve to an active website. Complainant has shown that, on  January 27, 2026, an email from <sara@guidehouselnc.com>, purporting to emanate from Complainant's HR Manager, was sent to a potential employee of Complainant, seeking to schedule a Microsoft Teams meeting to discuss the role in more detail.

 

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 name on the part of Respondent. The evidentiary burden therefore shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the <guidehouselnc.com> domain name. See JUUL Labs, Inc. v. Dryx Emerson / KMF Events LTD, FA 1849706 (Forum July 17, 2019). Respondent has made no attempt to do so.

 

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

 

Complainant has established this element.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

The four illustrative circumstances set out in paragraph 4(b) of the Policy as evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) are not exclusive.

 

The circumstances set out above in relation to the second element satisfy the Panel that Respondent was fully aware of Complainant's GUIDEHOUSE mark and its website at "www.guidehouse.com" when Respondent registered the <guidehouselnc.com> domain name and that Respondent registered and is using the domain name in bad faith to impersonate Complainant.

 

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

 

 

 

Alan L. Limbury, Panelist

Dated: March 19, 2026