TeleTech Holdings, Inc. v. Naijakit Official
Claim Number: FA2112001975305
Complainant is TeleTech Holdings, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Steven M. Levy of FairWinds Partners LLC, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is Naijakit Official (“Respondent”), Nigeria.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <ttecdata.com> and <ttecdatainc.com>, registered with 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 Panelist in this proceeding.
Richard Hill as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on December 1, 2021; the Forum received payment on December 1, 2021.
On December 1, 2021, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <ttecdata.com> and <ttecdatainc.com> domain names are registered with NameCheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. NameCheap, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameCheap, Inc. 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 December 3, 2021, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of December 23, 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@ttecdata.com, postmaster@ttecdatainc.com. Also on December 3, 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 28, 2021, 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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant states that, founded in 1982, it is a multi-national, publicly traded company (NASDAQ symbol: TTEC) offering customer experience and engagement technology and services. Complainant focuses on delivering sales and marketing solutions to help clients around the world boost their revenue as well as to manage their front-to-back office processes and optimize the customer experience. It adopted the name TTEC in 2018. Since that time, the TTEC Mark has been widely promoted through Complainant’s website at <www.ttec.com>, on social media such as Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram, and has been the subject of significant news coverage in global and local outlets. As an international technology-based company, many of Complainant’s employees work remotely, often from their homes. Complainant promotes its employee hiring function through its website at <www.ttecjobs.com> and advertisements on various social media platforms. Complainant has rights in the TTEC mark based upon its registration in the United States in 2019.
Complainant alleges that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to its TTEC mark, as they incorporate the mark in its entirety, merely adding the descriptive terms “data” and “ data inc,” respectively, as well as the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com”. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
According to Complainant, Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant’s TTEC mark and is not commonly known by the disputed domain names. Additionally, Respondent does not use the disputed domains for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent uses the disputed domain names to pass off as Complainant as part of a fraudulent employment scam. Tthe resolving websites mimic Complainant’s legitimate websites, displaying Complainant’s mark and logo. Specifically, victims are attracted to advertisements on social media sites or Respondent’s websites inviting them to apply for a job with Complainant and may also receive certain emails from Respondent. The job applicant then participates in an online chat with Respondent during which they are asked to provide personal information in furtherance of the false job application and are also told that they will need to purchase certain equipment (a laptop and specialized job-related software). Respondent offers to send the job applicant a check to cover these job-related costs and instructs that the check be deposited into the applicant’s own bank account while, at the same time, the applicant uses their PayPal or other financial account to purchase the needed supplies from a website designated by Respondent. However, in reality, there is no job, no job supplies, and the supposed seller of these supplies – Respondent – simply steals the victim’s money while the fake check that it sent is rejected by the victim’s bank. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain names in bad faith. Respondent uses the disputed domain names to pass off as Complainant and engage in phishing. Additionally, Respondent used a WHOIS privacy shield to conceal its identity. Finally, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the TTEC mark based on the notoriety of the mark and Respondent’s efforts to pass off as Complainant. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant owns the mark TTEC and uses it to provide sales and marketing solutions.
Complainant’s rights in its mark date back to 2019.
The disputed domain names were registered in 2021.
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark.
The resolving websites mimic Complainant’s legitimate website, displaying Complainant’s mark and logo. The dispute domain names are used in furtherance of a fraudulent phishing scheme.
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 names incorporate Complainant’s TTEC mark in its entirety, merely adding the descriptive terms “data” and “data inc,” respectively, and the gTLD “.com”. The addition of descriptive terms and gTLDs to a mark does not distinguish the disputed domain name from the mark incorporated therein per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Vanguard Group Inc. v. Proven Fin. Solutions, FA 572937 (Forum Nov. 18, 2005) (holding that the addition of both the word “advisors” and the gTLD “.com” did not sufficiently alter the disputed domain name to negate a finding of confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)); see also The Toronto-Dominion Bank v. George Whitehead, FA 1784412 (Forum June 11, 2018) (“[S]light differences between domain names and registered marks, such as the addition of words that describe the goods or services in connection with the mark and gTLDs, do not distinguish the domain name from the mark incorporated therein per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”). Thus, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its TTEC mark. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names: where a response is lacking, WHOIS information may be used to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. LY Ta, FA 1789106 (Forum June 21, 2018) (concluding a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name where the complainant asserted it did not authorize the respondent to use the mark, and the relevant WHOIS information indicated the respondent is not commonly known by the domain name). Here, the WHOIS information for the disputed domain names lists the registrant of both as “Naijakit Official.” Therefore the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
The resolving websites mimics Complainant’s legitimate website, displaying Complainant’s mark and logo. Evidence presented by Complainant shows that Respondent attempts to pass off as Complainant in order to engage in a fraudulent employment phishing scheme. Using a disputed domain name to pass off as a complainant in furtherance of a phishing or fraudulent scheme 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 Bittrex, Inc. v. Caroline Alves Maia, FA 1796113 (Forum Aug. 6, 2018) (finding the respondent’s attempt to pass itself of as the complainant was not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) when the respondent used the disputed domain name to present users with a website that was “virtually identical, with the same color scheme, the same layout and the same substantive content.”); see also DaVita Inc. v. Cynthia Rochelo, FA 1738034 (Forum July 20, 2017) (”Passing off in furtherance of a phishing scheme is not considered a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use.”); see additionally Virtu Financial Operating, LLC v. Lester Lomax, FA1409001580464 (Forum Nov. 14, 2014) (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 under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) where the respondent was using the disputed domain name to phish for Internet users personal information by offering a fake job posting on the resolving website). Therefore the Panel finds that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain names 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 names.
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 names.
Indeed, as already noted, Respondent uses the disputed domain names to pass off as Complainant in order to engage in phishing for commercial gain. Use of a disputed domain name to pass off as a complainant and phish for users personal and financial information is evidence of bad faith per Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv). See FIL Limited v. Li jie, FA 1718900 (Forum Mar. 17, 2017) (finding the <fidelity.cn.com> domain name was registered and used in bad faith as it resolved to a website which mimicked the complainant’s login page in an attempt to gain Internet users’ personal and financial information); see also Eastman Chemical Company v. Lukas Moris, FA 1956649 (Forum Aug. 23, 2021) (“Complainant first argues Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith because Respondent uses the disputed domain name to impersonate Complainant in furtherance of a phishing scheme. A domain name that is used in connection with a phishing scheme over email may be evidence of a domain name registered and used in bad faith under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv).”). Therefore the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain names in bad faith under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv).
Further, Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s mark: the resolving websites display Complainant’s mark and logo. While constructive notice is insufficient to demonstrate bad faith, actual knowledge of a complainant’s rights in a mark prior to registration may be evidence of bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Custom Modular Direct LLC v. Custom Modular Homes Inc., FA 1140580 (Forum Apr. 8, 2008) (“There is no place for constructive notice under the Policy.”); see also Orbitz Worldwide, LLC v. Domain Librarian, FA 1535826 (Forum Feb. 6, 2014) (“The Panel notes that although the UDRP does not recognize ‘constructive notice’ as sufficient grounds for finding Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) bad faith, the Panel here finds actual knowledge through the name used for the domain and the use made of it.”); 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). The Panel finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the mark prior to Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name and that this constitutes 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 <ttecdata.com> and <ttecdatainc.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Richard Hill, Panelist
Dated: December 29, 2021
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page