Hubbell Incorporated v. Kesava Neeli
Claim Number: FA2206001999050
Complainant is Hubbell Incorporated (“Complainant”), represented by Rebeccah Gan of Muncy, Geissler, Olds & Lowe, P.C., Virginia, USA. Respondent is Kesava Neeli (“Respondent”), California, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <hubbellcareers.com>, registered with Wild West Domains, LLC.
Hon. Karl v. Fink (Ret.) as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on June 3, 2022; the Forum received payment on June 3, 2022.
On June 6, 2022, Wild West Domains, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <hubbellcareers.com> domain name is registered with Wild West Domains, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Wild West Domains, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Wild West Domains, 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 June 9, 2022, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of June 29, 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@hubbellcareers.com. Also on June 9, 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 July 6, 2022, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Hon. Karl V. Fink (Ret.) 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, Hubbell Incorporated, manufactures residential and commercial electrical and electronic products. Complainant has rights in the HUBBELL mark through its registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g. Reg. No. 1,018,779, registered on Aug. 26, 1975). Respondent’s <hubbellcareers.com> domain name, registered on October 11, 2021, is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark as it incorporates the mark entirely while adding the generic term “careers” and the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).
Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <hubbellcareers.com> domain name. Respondent inactively holds the disputed domain name’s resolving website. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Complainant authorized or licensed Respondent to use its HUBBELL mark in the disputed domain name. Furthermore, Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, but instead attempts to pass off as Complainant while phishing for personal and financial information.
Respondent registered and uses the <hubbellcareers.com> domain name in bad faith. Respondent passes off as Complainant and engages in phishing.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
For the reasons set forth below, based upon the uncontested allegations and evidence, the Panel finds that Complainant is entitled to the requested relief of transfer of the <hubbellcareers.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”).
Complainant contends that Respondent’s <hubbellcareers.com> domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s HUBBELL mark. Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), a domain name is generally considered confusingly similar to the mark it incorporates where it merely adds a generic term along with the “.com” gTLD. See MTD Products Inc v. J Randall Shank, FA 1783050 (Forum June 27, 2018) (“The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark as it wholly incorporates the CUB CADET mark before appending the generic terms ‘genuine’ and ‘parts’ as well as the ‘.com’ gTLD.”). The disputed domain name incorporates the HUBBELL mark in its entirety while adding the generic term “careers” along with the “.com” gTLD. The Panel finds that Respondent’s domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s HUBBELL mark under Policy ¶4(a)(i).
Complainant has proved this element.
Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)); see also Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) (“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”). The Panel finds that Complainant has made a prima facie case.
Complainant argues that Respondent is not commonly known by the <hubbellcareers.com> domain name. Under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), where a response is lacking, relevant WHOIS information may demonstrate that a Respondent is not commonly known by a disputed domain name. See Deutsche Lufthansa AG v. Mohamed elkassaby, FA 1801815 (Forum Sep. 17, 2018) (“The WHOIS lists “Mohamed elkassaby” as registrant of record. Coupled with Complainant’s unrebutted assertions as to absence of any affiliation between the parties, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name in accordance with Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).”). The WHOIS record identifies Respondent as “Kesava Neeli,” and nothing in the record rebuts Complainant’s assertion that it never authorized or licensed Respondent to use its mark in the disputed domain name. The Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
Complainant argues that Respondent is not using the <hubbellcareers.com> domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services, nor any legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii), using a disputed domain name to pass off as a Complainant while phishing for users information does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor any legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See 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.”). Complainant provides the Declaration of Jeffrey G. Truedson which asserts that on or around December 2021, Complainant was alerted to a fraudulent scheme involving this domain, and subsequently complained to the Registrar who then disabled the website. On or around May 13, 2022, Complainant was informed of a new fraudulent scheme where email addresses linked to the disputed domain name made fraudulent employment offers contingent upon the payment of processing fees. The Panel finds that Respondent is not using the disputed domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services, nor any legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii).
Complainant contends that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <hubbellcareers.com> domain name as it fails to make active use of the domain name. Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), rights and legitimate interests are not established by failure to make active use of a domain name. See TMP Int’l, Inc. v. Baker Enters., FA 204112 (Forum Dec. 6, 2003) (“[T]he Panel concludes that Respondent's [failure to make an active use] of the domain name does not establish rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).”). Complainant provides a screenshot of the disputed domain name’s resolving website, which features no content and therefore fails to make active use of the domain. The Panel finds that Complainant lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Complainant has proved this element
Complainant argues that Respondent registered and uses the <hubbellcareers.com> domain name in bad faith by passing off as Complainant. Under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv), using a domain name to pass off as a complainant is evidence of bad faith registration and use. See American Cheerleader Media, LLC. v. ilir shoshi / cheer, FA 1592319 (Forum Jan. 20, 2015) (“The Panel here finds that Respondent has engaged in bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) as … Respondent utilizes a logo and stylized font identical to Complainant’s own, as well as Complainant’s copyrighted images and text in an attempt to pass itself off as Complainant.”). The Declaration provided by Complainant asserts that there had been a financial scam emanating from email addresses associated with the disputed domain name. This is evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
Additionally, Complainant contends that Respondent registered and uses the <hubbellcareers.com> domain name in bad faith by engaging in phishing. Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii), using the disputed domain name to phish for users personal or financial information may be evidence of bad faith registration and use. See Wells Fargo & Co. v. Maniac State, FA 608239 (Forum Jan. 19, 2006) (finding bad faith registration and use where the respondent was using the <wellsbankupdate.com> domain name in order to fraudulently acquire the personal and financial information of the complainant’s customers). The Declaration provided by Complainant asserts that email addresses linked to the disputed domain name made fraudulent employment offers contingent upon the payment of processing fees. The Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Complainant has proved this element.
Complainant having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the <hubbellcareers.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Hon. Karl V. Fink (Ret.) Panelist
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page