Brighthouse Services, LLC v. Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot
Claim Number: FA2001001880800
Complainant is Brighthouse Services, LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Kathryn G. Cole of Moore & Van Allen PLLC, United States. Respondent is Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot (“Respondent”), United States.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <brihgthousefinancial.com>, registered with Dynadot, LLC.
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.
Richard Hill as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on January 27, 2020; the Forum received payment on January 29, 2020.
On January 30, 2020, Dynadot, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <brihgthousefinancial.com> domain name is registered with Dynadot, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Dynadot, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Dynadot, LLC 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 30, 2020, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 19, 2020 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@brihgthousefinancial.com. Also on January 30, 2020, 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, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On February 24, 2020, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Richard Hill 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 states that it is in the business of marketing, promoting, and selling financial services with more than $220 billion in total assets and $2.7 million in insurance policies and annuity contracts. Complainant has rights in the BRIGHTHOUSE FINANCIAL mark based upon registration in the United States in 2019.
Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is identical and/or confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark, as it incorporates the BRIGHTHOUSE FINANCIAL mark in its entirety, merely transposing two letters within the mark.
According to Complainant, Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant’s BRIGHTHOUSE FINANCIAL mark and is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Additionally, Respondent doesn’t use the disputed domain for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent uses the disputed domain name to host a parked webpage that displays third-party advertisements, some to products and services that compete with those of Complainant.
Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent uses the domain name to display and profit from sponsored links, some of which compete with Complainant. Additionally, Respondent’s domain name registration constitutes typosquatting. Further, Respondent uses a privacy service to conceal its identity. Finally, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the BRIGHTHOUSE FINANCIAL mark prior to the registration of the disputed domain name.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant has registered trademarks for the mark BRIGHTHOUSE FINANCIAL and uses it market financial services. The mark was registered in 2019.
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark.
The disputed domain name was registered in 2020.
The resolving website displays advertising and links to websites that offer products and services, some of which compete with those of Complainant.
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 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”).
The disputed domain name is a mere misspelling of Complainant’s mark created by transposing the letters “g” and “h” in the word “bright”; it also adds the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) to the mark. The minor misspelling of a mark and addition of a gTLD do not adequately distinguish a domain name from the mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Vanguard Trademark Holdings USA LLC v. Shuai Wei Xu / Xu Shuai Wei, FA 1784238 (Forum June 1, 2018) (“Respondent arrives at each of the disputed domain names by merely misspelling each of the disputed domain names and adding the gTLD ‘.com.’ This is insufficient to distinguish the disputed domain names from Complainant’s trademark.”). Thus, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant’s BRIGHTHOUSE FINANCIAL mark. Respondent is not known by the disputed domain name: absent a reply, WHOIS information can be used to show that a respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, especially where a privacy service has been engaged. See H-D U.S.A., LLC, v. ilyas Aslan / uok / Domain Admin ContactID 5645550 / FBS INC / Whoisprotection biz, FA 1785313 (Forum June 25, 2018) (“The publicly available WHOIS information identifies Respondent as ‘Ilyas Aslan’ and so there is no prima facie evidence that Respondent might be commonly known by either of the [<harleybot.bid> and <harleybot.com>] domain names.”); see also Kohler Co. v. Privacy Service, FA1505001621573 (Forum July 2, 2015) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) where “Privacy Service” was listed as the registrant of the disputed domain name). Here, the WHOIS information of record lists “Super Privacy Ltd., c/o Dynadot LLC”. Thus the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
The disputed domain name resolves to a parked webpage that displays third-party advertisements, including to products and services that compete with those of Complainant. Use of a disputed domain name to host third-party advertisements is not considered a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Danbyg Ejendomme A/S v. lb Hansen / guerciotti, FA1504001613867 (Forum June 2, 2015) (finding that the respondent had failed to provide a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name where the disputed domain name resolved to a website that offered both competing hyperlinks and hyperlinks unrelated to the complainant’s business). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). And the Panel finds that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
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, Respondent uses the disputed domain name to display and profit from sponsored links. Use of a confusingly similar domain name to attract users for commercial gain is evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See AltaVista Co. v. Krotov, D2000-1091 (WIPO Oct. 25, 2000) (finding bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the respondent’s domain name resolved to a website that offered links to third-party websites that offered services similar to the complainant’s services and merely took advantage of Internet user mistakes). Thus the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
Further, Complainant Respondent’s domain name registration constitutes typosquatting, since the disputed domain name is a mere misspelling of Complainant’s mark. Typosquatting may act as independent evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Under Armour, Inc. v. JEFF RANDALL, FA1410001585022 (Forum Nov. 18, 2014) (finding that the respondent’s <unerarmour.com> domain name constitutes typosquatting of the complainant’s UNDER ARMOUR mark, which is evidence of bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)). Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <brihgthousefinancial.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Richard Hill, Panelist
Dated: February 24, 2020
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page