DECISION

 

Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP v. Tobias Luna

Claim Number: FA2602002206352

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP ("Complainant"), represented by John Gary Maynard, Virginia, USA. Respondent is Tobias Luna ("Respondent"), Florida, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <hungton.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 February 20, 2026; Forum received payment on February 20, 2026.

 

On February 20, 2026, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <hungton.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 24, 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@hungton.com. Also on February 24, 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 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 has continuously used the HUNTON mark in connection with legal services for over 120 years. Complainant owns numerous registrations and applications for its various HUNTON-based marks, inter alia, through its USPTO registration for the mark HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH (e.g., Reg. No. 5,789,030, registered June 25, 2019), and the mark HUNTON (e.g., Application No. 99002816, filed January 16, 2025). The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's HUNTON-based marks, as it constitutes a misspelling of the mark with a minor typo, namely the addition of a single letter "g" embedded within the word "HUNTON."

 

ii) Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The WHOIS information does not indicate that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. Complainant has never authorized Respondent to use its HUNTON trademark for any purpose, nor is Respondent a licensee of or agent for Complainant. The use of a domain for the purpose of sending phishing emails constitutes prima facie evidence of Respondent's lack of legitimate rights. The disputed domain name does not resolve to an active website; instead, Respondent has employed the disputed domain name in a phishing and fraud scheme targeting an employee of Complainant.

 

iii) The registration of a domain to impersonate another as part of a phishing scheme demonstrates bad faith registration and use. The sole purpose of Respondent's registration of the disputed domain is the furtherance of a fraudulent phishing scheme. Respondent gained access to the email account of Complainant's employee through a phishing email and subsequently registered the disputed domain in an attempt to perpetrate fraud against Complainant and potentially third parties. Furthermore, Respondent registered the disputed domain under a privacy shield. Within the context of this case, such behavior provides further evidence of bad faith.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent did not submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

1. The disputed domain name was registered on January 26, 2026.

 

2. Complainant has established rights in the mark for its various HUNTON-based marks, inter alia, through its USPTO registration for the mark HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH (e.g., Reg. No. 5,789,030, registered June 25, 2019).

 

3. Complainant utilizes both the <hunton.com> and <huntonak.com> domains in connection with its website.

 

4. Respondent has attempted to induce confusion among Complainant's employees by directing emails to said employees from a purportedly legitimate source, containing a link to a sister domain, thereby tricking them into providing credentials sufficient for Respondent to gain control over the employees' email accounts.

 

5. Complainant's IT Security Operations immediately began to receive Microsoft Defender alerts detecting an unfamiliar sign-in threat on an employee's account. Subsequent to the access attempt, Complainant received an email from DNS Twister, a service that monitors for look-alike domains, stating that the disputed domain name was registered on January 26, 2026. This registration occurred within 15 minutes of the domain used in the phishing email and utilized the same registrar and privacy shield. It is highly likely that Respondent is responsible for the phishing attempt and intended to use the disputed domain name once Respondent established control of the employee's email account, in order to continue the fraudulent scheme.

 

6. Complainant sent a letter to the registrar, Namecheap, explaining these facts, and Namecheap has subsequently disabled the disputed domain name.

 

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 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 asserts rights in the HUNTON-based marks, inter alia, through its USPTO registration for the mark HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH (e.g., Reg. No. 5,789,030, registered June 25, 2019), and the mark HUNTON (e.g., Application No. 99,002,816, filed January 16, 2025). Complainant has submitted evidence of these registrations, and the Panel concludes that Complainant has established rights in the HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH mark under Policy Paragraph 4(a)(i).

 

Complainant argues that the disputed domain name <hungton.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant's HUNTON-based marks, as it merely misspells the mark with a minor typo, namely the addition of a single letter "g" embedded within the word "HUNTON."

 

The Panel notes that Complainant's registered mark HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH is a composite mark consisting of two rows, where HUNTON is positioned above ANDREWS KURTH. As HUNTON is presented in a prominently large font relative to the small font used for ANDREWS KURTH, it is readily apparent that the mark is likely to be perceived and abbreviated as HUNTON. This is further supported by the fact that Complainant utilizes the domain <hunton.com>, consisting solely of the term HUNTON, as its official website and has filed separate trademark applications for the mark HUNTON (e.g., Application No. 99002816, filed January 16, 2025).

 

Accordingly, HUNTON is a separable and dominant element of the HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH mark, and the disputed domain name merely misspells this dominant element with a minor typo, by embedding a single letter "g." Misspelling a mark by transposing letters and adding a gTLD to a mark may not sufficiently differentiate the disputed domain name under Policy Paragraph 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 Complainant's mark HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH mark under Policy Paragraph 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 Overview 3.1 ("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 "Tobias Luna" 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 Paragraphs 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 Paragraph 4(c)(i), nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy Paragraph 4(c)(iii).").

 

The Panel observes from Complainant's evidence, including screenshots of emails, that Respondent has attempted to induce confusion among Complainant's employees by directing emails to said employees from a purportedly legitimate source, containing a link to a sister domain, thereby tricking them into providing credentials sufficient for Respondent to gain control over the employees' email accounts. The subsequent step in this phishing scheme involves the use of the confusingly similar disputed domain to send emails to third parties, purportedly from the employees whose email accounts have been compromised by Respondent.

 

The Panel further notes that Complainant's IT Security Operations began to receive Microsoft Defender alerts detecting an unfamiliar sign-in threat on an employee's account. Subsequent to the access attempt, Complainant received an email from DNS Twister, a service that monitors for look-alike domains, stating that the disputed domain name was registered on January 26, 2026. This registration occurred within 15 minutes of the domain used in the phishing email and utilized the same registrar and privacy shield. It is highly likely that Respondent is responsible for the phishing attempt and intended to use the disputed domain name once Respondent established control of the employee's email account, in order to continue the fraudulent scheme.

 

The Panel finds that Respondent's actions are illegal and malicious, as they presumably seek payment from the victims, and therefore, do not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy Paragraphs 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 Paragraph 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 has attempted to induce confusion among Complainant's employees by directing emails to said employees from a purportedly legitimate source, containing a link to a sister domain, thereby tricking them into providing credentials sufficient for Respondent to gain control over the employees' email accounts. The subsequent step in this phishing scheme involves the use of the confusingly similar disputed domain to send emails to third parties, purportedly from the employees whose email accounts have been compromised by Respondent. Respondent presumably seeks payment from the victims. The Panel finds that Respondent's phishing activities disrupt Complainant's business for its commercial gain and constitute bad faith registration and use under Policy Paragraphs 4(b)(iii) and (iv).

 

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

 

 

 

Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq., Panelist

Dated: March 17, 2026