Haynes and Boone, LLP v. Robert Chuks
Claim Number: FA1904001840446
Complainant is Haynes and Boone, LLP ("Complainant"), represented by Katharyn Zagorin, Texas, USA. Respondent is Robert Chuks ("Respondent"), Nigeria.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <haynesboonellp.com>, registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com.
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.
David E. Sorkin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on April 25, 2019; the Forum received payment on April 25, 2019.
On April 27, 2019, PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com confirmed by email to the Forum that the <haynesboonellp.com> domain name is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com 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 April 29, 2019, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of May 20, 2019 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via email to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@haynesboonellp.com. Also on April 29, 2019, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the email 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, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On May 21, 2019, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed David E. Sorkin as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the 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, the Forum's Supplemental Rules, and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant is a law firm based in Dallas, Texas, with seventeen offices around the world. Complainant has offered legal services under the name Haynes and Boone, LLP since 1970. Complainant owns national trademark registrations for the HAYNESBOONE and HAYNES AND BOONE marks in the United States and elsewhere, and also claims common law trademark rights.
Respondent registered the disputed domain name <haynesboonellp.com> in March 2019. The domain name does not resolve to a website, but Complainant alleges that it is being used in connection with an email scam. Complainant states that it learned in March 2019 of an email message using the disputed domain name and purporting to be from an attorney employed in Complainant's London office, and offering the recipient the opportunity to obtain a substantial sum of "unclaimed funds" belonging to a deceased client. Complainant states that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and has never requested nor been granted permission to use Complainant's mark.
Complainant contends on the above grounds that the disputed domain name <haynesboonellp.com> is confusingly similar to its HAYNESBOONE and HAYNES AND BOONE marks; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted 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 of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, § 4.3 (3d ed. 2017), available at http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (dismissing complaint where complainant failed to "produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations").
The disputed domain name <haynesboonellp.com> incorporates Complainant's registered HAYNESBOONE trademark, adding the generic abbreviation "llp" (which is also contained in Complainant's name) and the ".com" top-level domain. These additions do not substantially diminish the similarity between the domain name and Complainant's mark. See, e.g., McGuireWoods LLP v. Geoffry Cole, FA 1732725 (Forum June 26, 2017) (finding <mcguirewoodsllp.com> confusingly similar to MCGUIREWOODS). Accordingly, the Panel considers the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights.
Under the Policy, the Complainant must first make a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and then the burden shifts to the Respondent to come forward with concrete evidence of such rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Productions, Inc. v. Entertainment Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006).
The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's HAYNESBOONE registered mark without authorization, and its only apparent use has been to impersonate Complainant in connection with a fraudulent scheme. Such use does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests under the Policy. See, e.g., Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Bob Stapp, FA 1829574 (Forum Mar. 11, 2019) (finding lack of rights or interests under similar circumstances).
Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name, and Respondent has failed to come forward with any evidence of such rights or interests. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has sustained its burden of proving that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
Finally, Complainant must show that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Under paragraph 4(b)(iii) of the Policy, bad faith may be shown by evidence that Respondent registered the disputed domain name "primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor." Under paragraph 4(b)(iv), bad faith may be shown by evidence that "by using the domain name, [Respondent] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [Respondent's] web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [Respondent's] web site or location or of a product or service on [Respondent's] web site or location."
Respondent registered a domain name obviously intended to create confusion with Complainant and its marks, and is using the domain name to impersonate Complainant in connection with a fraudulent scheme. Such conduct is indicative of bad faith under the Policy. See, e.g., Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Bob Stapp, supra (finding bad faith registration and use under similar circumstances). The Panel so finds.
Having considered the three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <haynesboonellp.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
David E. Sorkin, Panelist
Dated: May 23, 2019
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page