Hubbell Incorporated v. Matt Hanson
Claim Number: FA2004001891361
The Complainant is Hubbell Incorporated (“Complainant”), represented by John Cordani of Robinson & Cole LLP, Connecticut, USA. The Respondent is Matt Hanson (“Respondent”), Connecticut, USA, pro se.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <onehubbell.com>, registered with Domain.com, 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.
David H. Bernstein as Panelist.
The Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on April 8, 2020; the Forum received payment on April 8, 2020.
On April 9, 2020, Domain.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <onehubbell.com> domain name is registered with Domain.com, LLC and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Domain.com, LLC has verified that the Respondent is bound by the Domain.com, 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 April 13, 2020, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of May 4, 2020 by which the Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on the Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@onehubbell.com. Also on April 13, 2020, the Written Notice of the Complaint was transmitted to the Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on the Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts, which notified the Respondent of the e-mail addresses served and the deadline for a Response.
On April 20, 2020, the Respondent sent a one line email that the Panel will treat as the Response. On April 29 2020, the Respondent sent an additional email, which the Panel will treat as an Additional Submission.
On April 27, 2020, pursuant to the Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed David H. Bernstein 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 [the] 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.
The Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from the Respondent to the Complainant.
A. Complainant
The Complainant and its affiliates and subsidiaries “manufacture and offer a wide range of residential and commercial electrical and electronic products including for the construction, industrial, commercial, communications, and utility industries.” The Complainant first filed for trademark protection for the Hubbell name with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in 1976. In total, the Complainant has registered six word and design marks for “Hubbell.” As early as 2013, the Complainant began using “One Hubbell” in commerce, and began using a One Hubbell logo as early as 2018. One Hubbell has been used to convey the idea that the Complainant and its affiliates and subsidiaries “offer[ ] . . . a unified business solution.” The Complainant has recently applied for trademark protection for the name and logo “One Hubbell.”
On March 8, 2020, the Respondent was terminated from employment with the Complainant’s subsidiary Killark Electric Manufacturing Co. On March 23, 2020, the Respondent registered the <onehubbell.com> domain name. The Respondent’s only use of the domain name appears to be utilization of the email address <mhanson@onehubbell.com>; the home page of the domain name’s website has no content.
Since his termination, the Respondent has engaged in a nuisance campaign against the Complainant. The Respondent has sent numerous expletive-laden emails to the Complainant’s counsel, and has offered to settle his dispute with the Complainant for “$1 Billion OR the title, compensation package, and responsibilities associated with the role of CEO.” His stated sole aim in life is “Defeating Hubbell.” The Respondent has repeatedly posted inflammatory content regarding the Complainant on LinkedIn, including stating his intent to use the <onehubbell.com> domain name for a male prostitution business.
B. Respondent
The Respondent provided a one sentence email response to the Complainant’s allegations: “I will be using Hubbell’s IP on OneHubbell.com[.]”
C. Additional Submissions
In a subsequent email submission, the Respondent alleged that he was “fired after requesting a conference call to discuss how my manager was ineffectively utilizing my skillset,” and attached a copy of his unsigned severance agreement and unemployment insurance claim. Although there is no reason that the Respondent could not have included this information with his first Response, because the Respondent is appearing pro se and because there is no prejudice in the late submission of this additional information, the Panel will accept the Respondent’s Additional Submission.
Having carefully reviewed the evidence and the parties’ arguments, the Panel finds the following:
The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant holds rights.
The Complainant has established that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name.
The Complainant has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the domain name has been registered and 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 the 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 the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
(2) the 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.
The Complainant states that it has used the “Hubbell” mark for over 100 years, and has registered the mark as early as 1976. Although the Complainant only applied to register the “One Hubbell” mark following the Respondent’s registration of the domain name, the Complainant has provided evidence demonstrating that it has used the “One Hubbell” trademark in commerce since at least 2013. The Panel notes that the Respondent concedes that the One Hubbell trademark is the Complainant’s intellectual property. Because the second level domain in the <onehubbell.com> domain name is identical to the One Hubbell trademark, the Complainant has met its burden of proof as to the first element.
The Complainant has succeeded in demonstrating that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not conducted any business under the “Hubbell” name and did not register the <onehubbell.com> domain name until after his employment termination from the Complainant’s subsidiary. Further, the Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name; the only use the Respondent has made of the domain has been sending harassing emails to the Complainant’s employees and counsel.
The Panel notes that this is not a case where the Respondent has used, or has shown demonstrable preparations towards using, the domain name for a criticism or commentary website. To the contrary, the Respondent has threatened to use the domain name to operate a male prostitution business. That is not a legitimate use of the domain name. In any event, even if the Respondent did evidence an intent to use the domain name for a criticism site, the developing consensus amongst UDRP panelists is that use of a domain name comprised only of the trademark, without distinguishing words (such as “sucks” or “criticism”), cannot be a legitimate interest because it would essentially be using the domain name to impersonate the trademark owner or imply affiliation with the trademark owner. See Dover Downs Gaming & Entertainment, Inc. v. Domains By Proxy, LLC / Harold Carter Jr, Purlin Pal LLC, WIPO Case No. D2019-0633; see generally WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, paragraphs 2.5.1 and 2.6.2.
Finally, the Complainant has provided sufficient evidence to show that the Respondent registered and is using the <onehubbell.com> domain in bad faith. The Respondent was recently terminated from his employment with the Complainant’s subsidiary. The Respondent has repeatedly posted inflammatory content regarding the Complainant on LinkedIn and has sent numerous harassing emails to the Complainant’s employees and counsel from both his <gmail.com> and <onehubbell.com> email addresses, including a settlement demand for either $1 billion or appointment as the company’s CEO. In one LinkedIn post, the Respondent stated his intent to use the <onehubbell.com> domain name for a male prostitution business. Whatever complaints the Respondent may have about the Complainant or whatever disputes he may have with the Complainant or its Killark Electric Manufacturing Co. subsidiary, those should be addressed through appropriate channels. Registering <onehubbell.com> as a domain name and threatening to use that domain name for a male prostitution business, when those threats are clearly being made solely to provide leverage in his dispute with the Complainant over his termination, is archetypical bad faith.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <onehubbell.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from the Respondent to the Complainant.
David H. Bernstein, Panelist
Dated: May 11, 2020
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page