CITRIX SYSTEMS, INC. v. Pablo Hernandez
Claim Number: FA2011001921846
Complainant: CITRIX SYSTEMS, INC. of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, United States of America.
Complainant Representative: Day Pitney LLP of Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Respondent: Pablo Hernandez of Gilbert, Arizona, United States of America.
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registry: NeuStar
Registrar: NameCheap, Inc.
The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Examiner in this proceeding.
Douglas M. Isenberg, as Examiner.
Complainant submitted: November 24, 2020
Commencement: December 3, 2020
Default Date: December 18, 2020
Having reviewed the communications records, the Examiner finds that the Forum has discharged its responsibility under usRS Procedure Paragraphs 3 and 4 and Rule 4 of the Rules for the .usTLD Rapid Suspension System (the "Rules") .
Complainant requests that the domain name be suspended for the life of the registration.
Clear and convincing evidence.
Complainant states, in full, as follows:
Since 1989, Citrix Systems, Inc. (“Citrix”) has been an industry leader and worldwide provider of computer software and related services in the nature of networking and server software, desktop virtualization, software-as-a-service, cloud computing technologies and mobility solutions. Currently, Citrix’s products and services are used by more than 400,000 organizations and over 100 million people worldwide. The CITRIX® trademark is a major asset of Citrix, and an important symbol of its reputation and good will. The CITRIX mark is an arbitrary coined term, not previously associated with any business entity or person. Registrant cannot establish, nor obtain, any rights in the name or mark CITRIX. Citrix has widely used and promoted the CITRIX® mark throughout the United States and internationally, and has established a global reputation. For the calendar year ending in December 2016, Citrix spent nearly USD$1.18 billion on advertising and promotional activities. CITRIX® is the subject of numerous trademark registrations in the United States and many other countries, all attesting to the strength and exclusivity of Citrix’s trademark rights. Citrix did not authorize or license any party to register secure-cltrixdoc.us, nor have any relationship with the registrant thereof. The subject domain, apart from the top level domain “.US”, is nearly identical to the Complainant’s mark, substituting an “l” for an “i”, two characters that appear highly similar. Adding in the descriptive and commonly used terms “secure” and “doc” are simply a further attempt by Registrant to confuse consumers who may believe they are accessing a secure service associated with Complainant. The screen captures of the site at the Domain clearly demonstrate the adverse use of the Complainant’s trademarks in this phishing scheme. Citrix’s prior rights in its CITRIX mark were established long prior to the registration of the subject domain. The subject domain was registered and is being used in bad faith as part of what appears to be a phishing scheme to capture usernames and passwords of Citrix’s users who may mistakenly believe that the Registrant’s website and use of the domain is associated with or affiliated with Complainant. There can be no doubt that Registrant was aware of Citrix’s name and mark, choosing a typosquatting name similar to Complainant’s mark and on the basis of constructive knowledge due to the prior registrations, and the extensive and advertising thereof. Prior panels reviewing for use in bad faith have found such phishing attempts to obtain usernames and/or passwords to be use in bath faith and an attempt to disrupt the complainant’s business and create confusion. See Carrefour v. Name Redacted, WIPO Case No. D2015-1174, August 15, 2015; see also Google Inc v. 1&1 Internet Limited, ADRForum Case No. FA1708001742725, August 31, 2017. It also appears that Registrant has entered false and misleading information as to the ownership of the domain.
Even though the Respondent has defaulted, usRS Procedure 1.2.6, requires Complainant to make a prima facie case, proven by clear and convincing evidence, for each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be suspended.
Paragraph 1.2.6.1 of the usTLD Rapid Suspension Dispute Policy (the “Policy”) requires a complainant to prove “that the registered domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a word mark: (i) for which the Complainant holds a valid national or regional registration and that is in current use; or (ii) that has been validated through court proceedings; or (iii) that is specifically protected by a statute or treaty in effect at the time the usRS complaint is filed.” Based on the trademark documents provided by Complainant, the Examiner finds that Complainant holds a valid national or regional registration and that is in current use for the mark CITRIX, including U.S. Reg. No. 2,614,647 (registered September 3, 2002). Further, the Examiner finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the CITRIX trademark because the CITRIX trademark is recognizable within the Disputed Domain Name, use of the letter “l” in place of the letter “i” is an intentional misspelling of the trademark, and addition of the words “secure” and “doc” (which are associated with Complainant’s services) do not prevent a finding of confusing similarity.
Paragraph 1.2.6.2 of the Policy requires a complainant to prove “that the Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name.” Based on Complainant’s unrebutted arguments set forth above, the Examiner finds that Complainant has established this element of the Policy.
Paragraph 1.2.6.3 of the Policy requires a complainant to prove “that the domain was registered or is being used in bad faith.” Given Complainant’s longstanding use of the CITRIX trademark before the Disputed Domain Name was registered; Complainant’s description of the trademark as an arbitrary, coined term; and Complainant’s scope and size, the Examiner finds that Respondent was likely aware of the CITRIX trademark when the Disputed Domain Name was registered. Further, given Complainant’s unrebutted description (as well as documented screenshots) that the Disputed Domain Name has been used as part of “a phishing scheme to capture usernames and passwords of Citrix’s users who may mistakenly believe that the Registrant’s website and use of the domain is associated with or affiliated with Complainant,” the Examiner finds that Complainant has established bad faith.
After reviewing the Complainant’s submissions, the Examiner determines that
the Complainant has demonstrated all three elements of the usRS by a standard of clear and convincing evidence; the Examiner hereby Orders the following domain name be SUSPENDED for the duration of the registration.
<secure-cltrixdoc.us>
Douglas M. Isenberg, Examiner
Dated: December 18, 2020
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page