Brighthouse Services, LLC v. Carolina Rodrigues / Fundacion Comercio Electronico
Claim Number: FA2105001944029
Complainant is Brighthouse Services, LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Kathryn G. Cole of Moore & Van Allen PLLC, North Carolina, USA. Respondent is Carolina Rodrigues / Fundacion Comercio Electronico ("Respondent"), Panama.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <brighthousetfinancial.com>, registered with GoDaddy.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 E. Sorkin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on May 5, 2021; the Forum received payment on May 11, 2021.
On May 7, 2021, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by email to the Forum that the <brighthousetfinancial.com> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.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 May 13, 2021, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of June 2, 2021 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@brighthousetfinancial.com. Also on May 13, 2021, 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 June 7, 2021, 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, together with its parent corporation, offers financial and insurance services under the BRIGHTHOUSE FINANCIAL mark, with more than $220 billion in total assets and 2.7 million insurance and annuity contracts in force. Complainant has used the BRIGHTHOUSE FINANCIAL mark in connection with these services since at least as early as 2016, and owns a United States trademark registration for BRIGHTHOUSE FINANCIAL in standard character form issued in 2019. Complainant also asserts common-law rights in the BRIGHTHOUSE FINANCIAL mark.
Respondent registered the disputed domain name <brighthousetfinancial.com> via a privacy registration service in April 2021. The domain name is being used for a parked page composed of sponsored third-party advertising links. Complainant states that Respondent has no affiliation or connection with Complainant, has not been authorized to use Complainant's mark, and is not commonly known by the disputed domain name.
Complainant contends on the above grounds that the disputed domain name <brighthousetfinancial.com> is confusingly similar to its BRIGHTHOUSE FINANCIAL mark; 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 <brighthousetfinancial.com> incorporates Complainant's registered BRIGHTHOUSE FINANCIAL trademark, replacing the space with a letter "T" and appending the ".com" top-level domain. These alterations do not substantially diminish the similarity between the domain name and Complainant's mark. See, e.g., Brighthouse Services, LLC v. Zhichao Yang, FA 1913833 (Forum Nov. 11, 2020) (finding <brighthousefinanncial.com>, <btighthousefinancial.com>, <brighthouseefinancial.com>, and other domain names confusingly similar to BRIGHTHOUSE FINANCIAL); Brighthouse Services, LLC v. Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot, FA 1880800 (Forum Feb. 24, 2020) (finding <brihgthousefinancial.com> confusingly similar to BRIGHTHOUSE FINANCIAL); Brighthouse Services, LLC v. Shi Lei, FA 1799173 (Forum Sept. 13, 2018) (finding <brigthousefinancial.com> confusingly similar to BRIGHTHOUSE FINANCIAL); Brighthouse Services, LLC v. Protection Domain, FA 1799170 (Forum Sept. 13, 2018) (finding <brighthhousefinancial.com> confusingly similar to BRIGHTHOUSE FINANCIAL). 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 registered mark without authorization, and it is being used for the sole apparent purpose of displaying a page containing pay-per-click links to third-party websites, at least some of which appear to offer competing services. Such use does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests under the Policy. See, e.g., Brighthouse Services, LLC v. Zhichao Yang, supra (finding lack of rights or interests in similar circumstances); Brighthouse Services, LLC v. Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot, supra (same); Brighthouse Services, LLC v. Shi Lei, supra (same); Brighthouse Services, LLC v. Protection Domain, supra (same).
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)(iv) of the Policy, 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 used a privacy registration service to register a domain name nearly corresponding to Complainant's mark, in an obvious instance of typosquatting, and is using the domain name to display pay-per-click links, at least some of which relate to competing services. Such conduct is indicative of bad faith registration and use under the Policy. See, e.g., Brighthouse Services, LLC v. Zhichao Yang, supra (finding bad faith registration and use in similar circumstances); Brighthouse Services, LLC v. Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot, supra (same); Brighthouse Services, LLC v. Shi Lei, supra (same); Brighthouse Services, LLC v. Protection Domain, supra (same). The Panel is also mindful of Respondent's extensive history of bad faith domain name registrations and adverse determinations under the Policy, see, e.g., NBC Fourth Realty Corp. v. Carolina Rodrigues / Fundacion Comercio Electronico, FA 1919472 (Forum Dec. 2, 2020), including more than 300 adverse decisions from the Forum and WIPO alone. The Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
Having considered the three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <brighthousetfinancial.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
David E. Sorkin, Panelist
Dated: June 7, 2021
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page