DECISION

 

Baker & Hostetler LLP v. Miller Susan

Claim Number: FA2606002227263

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Baker & Hostetler LLP ("Complainant"), represented by Kevin M. Bovard of Baker & Hostetler LLP, Pennsylvania, USA. Respondent is Miller Susan ("Respondent"), Florida, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <bakerlaw.cc>, registered with Web Commerce Communications Limited dba WebNic.cc.

 

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 June 15, 2026; Forum received payment on June 15, 2026.

 

On June 16, 2026, Web Commerce Communications Limited dba WebNic.cc confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <bakerlaw.cc> domain name is registered with Web Commerce Communications Limited dba WebNic.cc and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Web Commerce Communications Limited dba WebNic.cc has verified that Respondent is bound by the Web Commerce Communications Limited dba WebNic.cc 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 June 24, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 14, 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@bakerlaw.cc. Also on June 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 July 15, 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. 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 states that it is one of America's largest law firms with 18 offices and over 1,000 attorneys nationwide. Complainant was founded in 1916 by Newton D. Baker. It has been representing clients from around the globe in a range of practice areas for the past 100 years and is rated as one of the top law firms in the country. In addition to the full name "Baker & Hostetler," Complainant has various brands that focus on the shortened form "Baker," such as BAKERHOSTS and INCUBAKER. Complainant has owned and operated the domain name <bakerlaw.com> since at least 1996. This domain is also used by all of Complainant's employees for their email addresses, i.e. <XXX@bakerlaw.com>. Complainant asserts rights in the mark BAKER HOSTETLER through its registration in the United States in 2007. The mark is well known, as is the use of BAKER to refer to Complainant.

 

According to Complainant, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar its BAKER HOSTETLER mark as it incorporates the BAKER portion of the mark, while merely adding the generic term "law" and the ".cc" country code top-level domain ("ccTLD").

 

Complainant alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Complainant authorized Respondent's use of the mark. Further, Respondent is not making a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use through the disputed domain name. Instead, Respondent used the disputed domain name to purportedly—but falsely and fraudulently—offer legal services, services which Complainant offers. Respondent's website at the disputed domain name mimics Complainant's website by including images, colors, the trademark and copyright which belong to Complainant.

 

Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. The disputed domain name is used to impersonate Complainant and to purport to offer competing services. Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's mark.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant owns the mark BAKER HOSTETLER and uses it to provide legal services. The mark is well known, as is the use of the term BAKER to refer to Complainant in the context of legal services

 

Complainant's registration of its mark dates back to 2007.

 

The disputed domain name was registered in 2026.

 

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

 

The disputed domain name is not being used.

 

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

The disputed domain name incorporates the BAKER portion of Complainant's BAKER HOSTETLER mark, merely adding the generic/descriptive term "law" and the ccTLD ".cc." Panels have found such alterations to a mark to be insufficient in overcoming a finding of confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("Where a relevant trademark is recognisable 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 Sterling Jewelers Inc. v. KAY KAY YAN, FA 1542616 (Forum Mar. 17, 2014) ("Complainant argues that Respondent's domain name features Complainant's KAY mark in its entirety in addition to the word "kiss" making it an abbreviation of Complainant's EVERY KISS BEGINS WITH KAY mark. Previous panels have found that abbreviations of registered marks are also protected under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)…. The Panel finds that Respondent's domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's KAY and EVERY KISS BEGINS WITH KAY marks."); see also Morgan Stanley v. Nicenic.com, Inc., FA 1368093 (Forum Mar. 5, 2011) (finding <ms-ae-fund.com> confusingly similar to Complainant's MORGAN STANLEY mark; "Previous panels have concluded that where a disputed domain name contains a common abbreviation of a mark, confusing similarity exists"); 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 KW KONA INVESTORS, LLC v. Privacy.co.com / Privacy.co.com, Inc Privacy ID# 923815, FA 1784456 (Forum June 11, 2018) ("[T]he omission of spacing and addition of a gTLD are irrelevant in determining whether the disputed domain name is confusingly similar."); see also Rockwell Automation v. Zhao Ke, FA 1760051 (Forum Jan. 2, 2018) ("The disputed domain name <rockwellautomation.co> corresponds to Complainant's registered ROCKWELL AUTOMATION mark, with the space omitted and the ".co" top-level domain appended thereto. These alterations do not distinguish the domain name from Complainant's mark for purposes of the Policy."). 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. 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 "Miller Susan" as the registrant name. Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name.

 

Complainant alleges that the resolving website imitates its own website and purports to offer competing services. In support, it produces the image of a website taken from the Internet Archive. However, that entry in the Internet Archive is for a version of Complainant's domain name <bakerlaw.com> which predates the registration of the disputed domain name. The Complaint does not contain an image of the website at the disputed domain name.

 

According to paragraph 4.8 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition ("WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.1"), a Panel may conduct limited factual research regarding disputed domain names:

 

Noting in particular the general powers of a panel articulated inter alia in paragraphs 10 and 12 of the UDRP Rules, it has been accepted that a panel may undertake limited factual research into matters of public record if it would consider such information useful to assessing the case merits and reaching a decision, in particular to affirm or corroborate a party's contention.

 

This may include visiting the website linked to the disputed domain name in order to obtain more information about the respondent or its use of the domain name, consulting historical resources such as the Internet Archive (www.archive.org) in order to obtain an indication of how a domain name may have been used in the relevant past, reviewing dictionaries or encyclopedias (e.g., Wikipedia), or accessing trademark registration databases.

 

The disputed domain name did not resolve to an active website when the Panel attempted to visit it. From a search in the Internet Archive, the Panel has determined that 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 is not using 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

Respondent (who did not reply to Complainant's contentions) has not presented any plausible explanation for its use of Complainant's mark. In accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel shall draw such inferences from Respondent's failure to reply as it considers appropriate. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent did not have a legitimate use in mind when registering the disputed domain name.

 

Indeed, as already noted, 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 3.1): "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 by itself prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. To the contrary, in looking at the totality of circumstances in each case, panelists have found that the registration and non-use of a domain name can still constitute bad faith for purposes of the Policy. 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 taking active steps to conceal its identity or (iv) the use of false or inaccurate contact details (noted to be in breach of the respondent's registration agreement). Taking the above factors into consideration, panels assess the overall plausibility of any (claimed) good faith use to which the domain name may be put in light of the composition of the domain name in relation to the relevant mark, such that, the more arbitrary or distinctive a mark the less plausible a claimed non-infringing good faith use is likely to be, and vice versa."

 

In the present case, Complainant's trademark is well known, as is the use of the term BAKER to refer to Complainant in the context of legal services. 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.").

 

There has been no response to the Complaint and Respondent used a privacy service, that is, it attempted to conceal its identity. 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).

 

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 <bakerlaw.cc> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Richard Hill, Panelist

Dated: July 15, 2026