Carahsoft Technology Corp. v. Zoe Davis / carahsoft.com
Claim Number: FA2201001981717
Complainant is Carahsoft Technology Corp. (“Complainant”), represented by Adam D. Mandell of Millen, White, Zelano & Branigan, P.C., Virginia, USA. Respondent is Zoe Davis / carahsoft.com (“Respondent”), Maryland, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <carahsofft.org>, (‘the Domain Name’) registered with Google LLC.
The undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Dawn Osborne as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on January 24, 2022; the Forum received payment on January 24, 2022.
On January 25, 2022, Google LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <carahsofft.org> Domain Name is registered with Google LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Google LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Google 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 January 31, 2022, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 22, 2022 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@carahsofft.org. Also on January 31, 2022, 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 February 27, 2022 pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Dawn Osborne 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
The Complainant’s contentions can be summarized as follows:
The Complainant is the owner of the trade mark CARAHSOFT registered, inter alia, in the USA for services related to information technology with first use recorded as 1999. It owns CARAHSOFT.com.
The Domain Name registered in 2021 is confusingly similar to the Complainant’ mark merely adding an extra letter ‘f’ and the gTLD “.org” which does not prevent confusing similarity.
The Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, is not commonly known by it and is not authorized by the Complainant. The reference to the Complainant’s domain name CARAHSOFT.com in the Respondent’s WhoIS details is false. Typosquatting is an indication of lack of rights or legitimate interests in a Domain Name.
The Domain Name does not point to an active web site so there is no bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. The Domain Name has been registered and used in bad faith. Typosquatting is bad faith per se. Such domains can be used for phishing. The Respondent has used a privacy service.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
The Complainant is the owner of the trade mark CARAHSOFT registered, inter alia, in the USA for services related to information technology with first use recorded as 1999. It owns CARAHSOFT.com.
The Domain Name registered in 2021 has not been pointed to an active web site. The WhoIs details for the Respondent falsely contain the Complainant’s CARAHSOFT.com domain name.
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 Domain Name consists of a sign confusingly similar to the Complainant’s CARAHSOFT mark (registered in the USA for services related to information technology with first use recorded as 1999) merely adding another letter ‘f’ and adding the gTLD “.org”.
The Panel agrees that misspellings such as the addition of a letter does not distinguish the Domain Name from the Complainant's trade mark pursuant to the Policy. See Google, Inc. v. DktBot.org, FA 286993 (Forum Aug. 4, 2004) (“The mere addition of a single letter to the complainant’s mark does not remove the respondent’s domain names from the realm of confusing similarity in relation to the complainant’s mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”). As such the addition of a single letter ‘f’ to the Domain Name does not prevent confusing similarity between it and the Complainant’s mark.
The gTLD “.org” does not serve to distinguish the Domain Name from the Complainant’s mark. See Red Hat Inc. v. Haecke, FA 726010 (Forum July 24, 2006) (concluding that the redhat.org domain name is identical to the complainant's red hat mark because the mere addition of the TLD was insufficient to differentiate the disputed domain name from the mark).
Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar for the purposes of the Policy with a mark in which the Complainant has rights.
As such the Panel holds that Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been satisfied.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant has not authorized the use of its mark. There is no evidence or reason to suggest the Respondent is, in fact, commonly known by the Domain Name ‘carahsofft’ with an extra ‘f’. The WhoIs details themselves are patently false as they contain the correctly spelled domain name of the Complainant CARAHSOFT.com. 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 Domain Name appears to be a typosquatting registration which does not resolve to an active web site. Typosquatting can be evidence that a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name. See Macy’s Inc. and its subsidiary Macy’s West Stores, Inc. v. chen wenjie c/o Dynadot Privacy, FA1404001552918 (Forum May 21, 2014) (“Respondent’s disputed domain names are typosquatted versions of Complainant’s registered mark. Typosquatting shows a lack of rights or legitimate interests.”).
The Respondent has not answered this Complaint to refute the allegations of the Complainant or explain why it has a legitimate right to register the Domain Name or use the correctly spelled Complainant’s domain name CARAHSOFT.com in the Respondent’s WhoIS details.
As such the Panelist finds that the Respondent does not have rights or a legitimate interest in the Domain Name and that the Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
The Domain Name seeks to take advantage of the situation where Internet users may make a typographical error. Typosquatting itself is evidence of relevant bad faith registration and use. See Diners Club int'l Ltd. v. Domain Admin ****** It's all in the name ******, FA 156839 (Forum June 23, 2003) (registering a domain name in the hope that Internet users will mistype the Complainant’s mark and be taken to the Respondent’s site is registration and use in bad faith). Typosquatting also indicates the Respondent had knowledge of the Complainant and its rights. See InfoSpace, Inc. v. Greiner, FA 227653 (Forum Mar. 8, 2004) (“Respondent’s domain name is a simple and popular variation of a trademark commonly used by typosquatters …Such a domain name evidences actual knowledge of the underlying mark prior to the registration of the domain name, and as Respondent failed to submit any evidence to counter this inferrence [sic], Respondent’s actions evidence bad faith registration of the disputed domain name.”).
Use of the Complainant’s domain name CARAHSOFT.com in the Respondent’s WhoIs details also indicates that the Respondent has actual knowledge of the Complainant, its business and rights. False use of WhoIS details under a privacy service while passively holding a domain name has been held to be bad faith. CTC Innovations, LLC v. On behalf of ctc-vietnam.com owner, Whois Privacy Service / Elizabeth B Allen D2021-2224 (WIPO September 2, 2021). The Panel holds that false use of the Complainant’s domain name CARAHSOFT.com in the Respondent’s WhoIs details is indicative of bad faith per se.
As such, the Panel holds that the Complainant has made out its case that the Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith and has satisfied the third limb of the Policy.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <carahsofft.org> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Dawn Osborne, Panelist
Dated: February 28, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page