Huron Consulting Group Inc. v. Michael Boyd
Claim Number: FA1606001681943
Complainant is Huron Consulting Group Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Genevieve E. Charlton of Barnes & Thornburg LLP, Illinois, United States. Respondent is Michael Boyd (“Respondent”), Texas, United States.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <huronconsultinqgroup.com>, registered with Tucows Domains Inc.
The undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his or her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Kenneth L. Port as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on June 30, 2016; the Forum received payment on July 1, 2016.
On June 30, 2016, Tucows Domains Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <huronconsultinqgroup.com> domain name is registered with Tucows Domains Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Tucows Domains Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Tucows Domains 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 July 1, 2016, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 21, 2016 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@huronconsultinqgroup.com. Also on July 1, 2016, 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 29, 2016, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Kenneth L. Port 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 uses the HURON CONSULTING GROUP mark in connection with its business of providing consultation services to a wide variety of clients. Complainant has registered the HURON CONSULTING GROUP mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 3,568,857, registered Feb. 3, 2009; Reg. No. 4,903,900, registered Feb. 23, 2016), which establishes rights in the mark. See Compl., at Attached Annex B. Respondent’s <huronconsultinqgroup.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the HURON CONSULTING GROUP mark as it merely a typosquatting variation of the mark because it misspells “consulting” by replacing the “g” in consulting with a “q” and it adds the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.”
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <huronconsultinqgroup.com> domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name nor is Complainant affiliated with Respondent in any way. See Compl., at Attached Annex E. Further, Respondent is making neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) through the <huronconsultinqgroup.com> domain name. Rather, the domain resolves to an inactive website stating, “This site can’t be reached.” Compl., at Attached Annex D.
Respondent is using the <huronconsultinqgroup.com> domain name in bad faith. First, Respondent has engaged in typosquatting of the HURON CONSULTING GROUP mark. Second, Respondent is not making an active use of the disputed domain name. Further, Respondent had actual and/or constructive knowledge of the HURON CONSULTING GROUP mark and Complainant’s rights therein because of the distinctiveness of the mark and Respondent’s inclusion of the mark in its entirety in the disputed domain name.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. The <huronconsultinqgroup.com> domain name was registered on February 16, 2016.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s valid and subsisting trademark, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in or to the disputed domain name, and that the Respondent has engaged in bad faith use and registration.
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 and inferences set forth in the Complaint as true unless the evidence is clearly contradictory. See Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Forum July 31, 2000) (holding that the respondent’s failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of the complaint to be deemed true); see also Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009 (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000) (“In the absence of a response, it is appropriate to accept as true all allegations of the Complaint.”).
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the valid and subsisting trademark of Complainant. Complainant has adequately plead its rights in and to the trademark HURON CONSULTING GROUP.
Respondent arrives at the disputed domain name by merely replacing the “g” in “consulting” with a “q”, and omitting spaces. This is insufficient to distinguish the disputed domain name from the Complainant’s trademark.
As such, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.
The Panel further finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in or to the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. The Complainant’s Annex E shows the WHOIS information regarding the disputed domain name. It lists “Michael Boyd” as registrant of record. Respondent has failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. Therefore, in light of the available evidence, the Panel finds that there is no basis in fact to find Respondent commonly known by the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
Respondent is making neither a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use through the <huronconsultinqgroup.com> domain name. Rather, Complainant contends that the domain name resolves to an inactive website stating “This site can’t be reached.” Compl., at Attached Annex D. Panels have found such inactive use by a respondent consists of neither a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Shemesh, FA 434145 (Forum Apr. 20, 2005) (“The Panel finds that the [failure to make an active use] of a domain name that is identical to Complainant’s mark is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and it is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”).
Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent’s <huronconsultinqgroup.com> domain name constitutes neither a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii). As such, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in or to the disputed domain name.
While Complainant does not make any contentions that fall within the articulated provisions of Policy ¶ 4(b), the Panel notes that these provisions are meant to be merely illustrative of bad faith, and that Respondent’s bad faith may be demonstrated by ancillary allegations considered under the totality of the circumstances. See Digi Int’l Inc. v. DDI Sys., FA 124506 (Forum Oct. 24, 2002) (determining that Policy ¶ 4(b) sets forth certain circumstances, without limitation, that shall be evidence of registration and use of a domain name in bad faith). The Panel finds that, given the totality of the circumstances, the Respondent has engaged in bad faith use and registration of the disputed domain name.
Complainant contends that Respondent has engaged in typosquatting when registering the disputed domain name. Panels have found bad faith registration and use when a respondent has engaged in typosquatting. See Homer TLC, Inc. v. Artem Ponomarev, FA1506001623825 (Forum July 20, 2015) (“Finally, under this head of the Policy, it is evident that the <homededpot.com> domain name is an instance of typosquatting, which is the deliberate misspelling of the mark of another in a domain name, done to take advantage of common typing errors made by Internet users in entering into a web browser the name of an enterprise with which they would like to do business online. Typosquatting is independent evidence of bad faith in the registration and use of a domain name.”).
Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent’s <huronconsultinqgroup.com> domain name constitutes as typosquatting and falls within the purview of Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) and, as such, constitutes bad faith use and registration.
Next, Complainant contends that Respondent has failed to make an active use of the disputed domain name. See Compl., at Attached Annex D. Panels have found that a respondent’s inactive holding of a disputed domain name constitutes bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Caravan Club v. Mrgsale, FA 95314 (Forum Aug. 30, 2000) (finding that the respondent made no use of the domain name or website that connects with the domain name, and that [failure to make an active use] of a domain name permits an inference of registration and use in bad faith).
Therefore, this Panel finds that Respondent’s inactive holding of the domain name constitutes as bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Lastly, Complainant argues that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the HURON CONSULTING GROUP mark. Complainant argues that the distinctiveness of the mark, and Respondent’s inclusion of the mark in its entirety in the disputed domain name indicates that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's mark and rights. The Panel finds that, given the totality of the circumstances, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's mark and rights and therefore determines that Respondent registered the disputed domain name in 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 <huronconsultinqgroup.com> domain name be transferred from the Respondent to the Complainant.
Kenneth L. Port, Panelist
Dated: July 31, 2016
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page