Keysight Technologies v. Raheem Hakeem / belgium trade union company
Claim Number: FA2111001972984
Complainant is Keysight Technologies (“Complainant”), represented by Lian Ernette of Holland & Hart LLP, Colorado, USA. Respondent is Raheem Hakeem / belgium trade union company (“Respondent”), Belgium.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <keysiqht.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.
Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on November 11, 2021; the Forum received payment on November 11, 2021.
On November 12, 2021, PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <keysiqht.com> domain name is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. 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 November 16, 2021, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of December 6, 2021 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@keysiqht.com. Also on November 16, 2021, 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 December 12, 2021, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Paul M. DeCicco 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 contends as follows:
Complainant, Keysight Technologies, manufactures test and measurement equipment and related software focused on the electronics and radio industries.
Complainant owns rights in the KEYSIGHT mark through its registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”).
Respondent’s <keysiqht.com> domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s KEYSIGHT mark, as it incorporates the mark in its entirety, only misspelling and replacing the “G” with a “Q” and adding the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <keysiqht.com> domain name. Respondent is neither an authorized user or a licensee of the KEYSIGHT mark, nor is Respondent commonly known by the at-issue domain name. Further, Respondent is not using the at-issue domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use as Respondent attempts to pass off as Complainant via email in furtherance of a phishing scheme. Additionally, the resolving to a webpage unrelated to Complainant.
Respondent registered and uses the <keysiqht.com> domain name in bad faith. Respondent has previously been found to register other domain names in bad faith showing a pattern of such registration. Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to disrupt Complainant’s business by attempting to pass itself off as Complainant. Further, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the KEYSIGHT mark, evidenced by Respondent’s use of the mark to pass off as Complainant. Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to perpetuate fraud, trying to obtain payment information from unknowing customers. Finally, Respondent engages in typosquatting, intentionally switching the “G” to a “Q”.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant has trademark rights in the KEYSIGHT mark.
Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and had not been authorized to use Complainant’s trademark in any capacity.
Respondent registered the at‑issue domain name after Complainant acquired rights in the KEYSIGHT trademark.
Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to facilitate fraud.
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 at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.
Complainant’s registration of the KEYSIGHT mark with the USPTO sufficiently demonstrates Complainant’s rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Recreational Equipment, Inc. v. Liu Chan Yuan, FA 2107001954773 (Forum Aug. 9, 2021) (“Registration of a mark with the USPTO is sufficient to demonstrate rights in the mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)”).
Respondent’s <keysiqht.com> domain name incorporates Complainant’s entire KEYSIGHT trademark merely replacing the mark’s letter “g” with a letter “q” and adding the generic top-level domain name “.com.” Respondent’s minor alterations to Complainant’s trademark in creating the at-issue domain name fail to distinguish the domain name from Complainant’s trademark. Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent’s <keysiqht.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s KEYSIGHT trademark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Omaha Steaks International, Inc. v. DN Manager / Whois-Privacy.Net Ltd, FA 1610122 (Forum July 9, 2015) (finding, “The domain name differs from the mark only in that the domain name substitutes the letter ‘a’ in the word ‘steak’ with the letter ‘c’ and adds the generic Top Level Domain (‘gTLD’) ‘.com.’ These alterations of the mark, made in forming the domain name, do not save it from the realm of confusing similarity under the standards of the Policy.”); see also, Staples, Inc. v. Whois Privacy Shield Services, FA 1617690 (Forum June 5, 2015) (holding that “Changing a single letter (especially when it is the final letter) is a minor enough change to support a finding of confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”).
Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006). Since Respondent failed to respond, Complainant’s prima facie showing acts conclusively.
Respondent lacks both rights and legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant’s trademark in any capacity and, as discussed below, there are no Policy ¶ 4(c) circumstances from which the Panel might find that Respondent has rights or interests in respect of the at‑issue domain name. See Navistar International Corporation v. N Rahmany, FA1505001620789 (Forum June 8, 2015) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name where the complainant had never authorized the respondent to incorporate its NAVISTAR mark in any domain name registration).
The WHOIS information for the at-issue domain name identifies the domain name’s registrant as “Raheem Hakeem / belgium trade union company” and the record before the Panel contains no evidence tending to prove that Respondent is commonly known by the <keysiqht.com> domain name. The Panel therefore concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by <keysiqht.com> for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). 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, Google LLC v. Bhawana Chandel / Admission Virus, FA 1799694 (Forum Sept. 4, 2018) (concluding that Respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name where “the WHOIS of record identifies the Respondent as “Bhawana Chandel,” and no information in the record shows that Respondent was authorized to use Complainant’s mark in any way.”).
Respondent’s <keysiqht.com> domain name resolves to a webpage concerning CentOS, a Linux open-source computing platform. However, Respondent’s primary use for the at-issue domain name is to send spoofed email appearing to be originating from Complainant in furtherance of fraud. Such use of the <keysiqht.com> domain name indicates neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a non-commercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Agilent Technologies, Inc. v. Vincent Muscat, FA1806001791505 (Forum July 17, 2018) (“using a disputed domain name to pass off and phish for users’ personal information is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i).”); see also, Time Warner Inc. v. Zhichao Yang, FA1610001700364 (Forum Dec. 12, 2016) (“Using a domain name for … a phishing scam does not constitute a bona fide offering or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.”).
Given the forgoing, Complainant satisfies its initial burden and conclusively demonstrates Respondent’s lack of rights and lack of interests in respect of the at-issue domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
The at-issue domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. As discussed below without limitation, there is evidence from which the Panel may conclude that Respondent acted in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
First, Complainant shows that Respondent has suffered adverse decisions as a respondent in numerous UDRP proceedings. Respondent’s history of domain abuse indicates a pattern of cybersquatting and therefore suggest Respondent’s bad faith in the instant case as per Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). See Webster Financial Corporation and Webster Bank, National Association v. Above.com Domain Privacy, FA1209001464477 (Forum Nov. 30, 2012) (finding where the record reflected that the respondent had been a respondent in other UDRP proceedings in which it was ordered to transfer disputed domain names to various complainants established a pattern of bad faith registration and use of domain names and stood as evidence of bad faith in the registration and use of domain names under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii)).
Next, Respondent uses the at-issue domain name in connection with an email phishing scheme. To wit, Respondent sent emails from addresses at <keysiqht.com> pretending to be from one of Complainant’s employees so as to create the illusion that the recipients were communicating with Complainant when they are not. Respondent cloaked as Complainant may then deceive third parties into submitting payments to accounts not controlled by Complainant. Respondent’s use of the domain name to afford a confusingly similar email address in furtherance of fraud shows Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the <keysiqht.com> domain name. See Abbvie, Inc. v. James Bulow, FA 1701075 (Forum Nov. 30, 2016) (“Respondent uses the <abbuie.com> domain name to impersonate Complainant’s CEO. Such use is undeniably disruptive to Complainant’s business and demonstrates bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii), and/or Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)”); see also Microsoft Corporation v. Terrence Green / Whois Agent / Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc., FA 1661030 (Forum Apr. 4, 2016) (finding the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain names to send fraudulent emails supported a finding of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)).
Moreover, Respondent engages in typosquatting. Typosquatting is a practice whereby a domain name registrant deliberately introduces typographical errors or misspellings into a trademark and then uses the mistyped string in a domain name hoping that internet users will inadvertently type the malformed string when searching for products or services associated with the target trademark and/or will, as appears to be the case here, read the misspelled trademark laden domain name and confuse it with its target trademark. As all can see, the at-issue domain name contains Complainant’s KEYSIGHT trademark with its “g” replaced by a “q.” Notably, “q” is graphically similar to “g” thus making the at-issue domain name easily mistaken for <keysight.com>. Respondent’s typosquatting, in itself, is evidence of Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) bad faith. See Cost Plus Management Services, Inc. v. xushuaiwei, FA 1800036 (Forum Sept. 7, 2018) (“Typosquatting itself is evidence of relevant bad faith registration and use.”); see also LifeLock, Inc. v. Adam Viener / ThunkTunk LLC, FA1409001579875 (Forum Oct. 28, 2014) (“As the Panel has noted above, at the conclusion of its findings under the first Policy element under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), the disputed domain name <lifelocl.com> differs from the LIFELOCK mark only by substituting the letter ‘L’ for the letter ‘K’ in the LOCK-portion of Complainant’s registered mark. The Panel finds this behavior amounts to typosquatting, and as such the Panel finds this to be evidence of bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”).
Finally, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the KEYSIGHT mark when it registered <keysiqht.com> as a domain name. Respondent’s actual knowledge is evident from the notoriety of Complainant’s trademark; from the apparent similarity between such mark and Respondent’s domain name; and from Respondent use of the domain name to pose as Complainant as part of an email phishing scheme. Respondent’s registration and use of the <keysiqht.com> domain name with knowledge of Complainant’s rights in such domain name further shows Respondent’s bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name); see also, Univision Comm'cns Inc. v. Norte, FA 1000079 (Forum Aug. 16, 2007) (rejecting the respondent's contention that it did not register the disputed domain name in bad faith since the panel found that the respondent had knowledge of the complainant's rights in the UNIVISION mark when registering the disputed domain name).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <keysiqht.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist
Dated: December 13, 2021
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page