Cognizant Technology Solutions U.S. Corporation v. Jonathan Chadwick / cognizanttech
Claim Number: FA1701001713983
Complainant is Cognizant Technology Solutions U.S. Corporation (“Complainant”), represented by David M. Kramer of DLA Piper LLP (US), District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is Jonathan Chadwick / cognizanttech (“Respondent”), New Jersey, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <cognizanttech.org>, (‘the Domain Name’) registered with Wild West Domains, LLC.
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.
Dawn Osborne of Palmer Biggs IP as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on January 24, 2017; the Forum received payment on January 24, 2017.
On January 26, 2017, Wild West Domains, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <cognizanttech.org> 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 January 27, 2017, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 16, 2017 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@cognizanttech.org. Also on January 27, 2017, 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 23, 2017, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Dawn Osborne of Palmer Biggs IP 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’s submissions can be summarised as follows:
Complainant, a global leader in technology consulting services owns the registered trade mark COGNIZANT in, inter alia, the USA for technology related services with first use recorded as 1994. COGNIZANT is a valuable and internationally recognised brand.
As of January 24, 2017 the Domain Name did not have an active web site. However, the Domain Name has been used to defraud Complainant and other third parties through impersonation of one of Complainant’s executives by means of issuing falsified purchase orders.
The Domain Name registered in 2016 is confusingly similar to and wholly incorporates Complainant’s COGNIZANT mark.
The addition of the .org suffix does not distinguish the Domain Name from Complainant’s mark. The inclusion of ‘tech’ does not distinguish the Domain Name from Complainant’s mark because it has a direct connection to Complainant’s business and name.
Complainant has no business relationship with Respondent and has not licensed Respondent to use its mark. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name.
Respondent is using the Domain Name to disrupt Complainant’s business. Respondent is also using the Domain Name to intentionally attract for commercial gain Internet users to Respondents’ web site or other on line location by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s COGNIZANT mark as to the source or affiliation of Respondent’s web site and the products or services on Respondent’s site. Further, the Domain Name is being used to defraud third parties into thinking communications using the Domain Name emanate from Complainant. The use also shows Respondent is familiar with Complainant’s business.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant owns the registered trade mark COGNIZANT in, inter alia, the USA for technology related services with first use recorded as 1994.
The Domain Name registered in 2016 has been used to defraud third parties.
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 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.”).
Identical and/or Confusingly Similar
The Domain Name consists of Complainant's COGNIZANT mark (which is registered in the USA for technology related services with first use recorded as 1994), the generic term ‘tech’ and the gTLD .org. The Panel agrees that the addition of the generic term ‘tech’ does not prevent the Domain Name from being confusingly similar to Complainant's trade mark pursuant to the Policy. The fact that Complainant operates in the technology sector adds to any likely confusion. See Microsoft Corporation v Thong Tran Thanh, FA 1653187 (Forum Jan 21, 2016) (determining that confusing similarity exists where a domain name contains a complainant’s mark in its entirety and differs only by the addition of a generic term).
The gTLD .org does not serve to distinguish the Domain Name from the COGNIZANT mark, which is the distinctive component of the Domain Name. See Sea World Inc. v JMXTRTADE.com, FA 872052 (Forum Feb. 12, 2007)(‘Since the top level gTLD is merely a functional element required of every domain name, the [domain name] is identical to [the complainant’s mark] under Policy 4 (a) (i).)
Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar for the purpose to a mark in which Complainant has rights.
As such the Panel holds that Complainant has satisfied the first limb of the Policy.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name, is not using it to offer bona fide goods and services and is not making a legitimate non commercial or fair use of the name. The Domain Name has been used for email addresses which reflects Complainant’s corporate name chosen in the hope that someone might mistakenly see an email coming from the Domain Name as a genuine email from Complainant. Complainant has provided evidence of use of the Domain Name to defraud. As such the Domain Name was registered for deceptive purposes which cannot form the basis for a right or legitimate interest. See Chevron Intellectual Property LLC v Thomas Webber/Chev Ronoil Recreational Sport Limited, FA 1661076 (Forum March 15, 2016) As such the Panel finds that Respondent does not have rights or a legitimate interest in the Domain Name and that Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy.
Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The use of the Domain Name to impersonate executives of Complainant shows knowledge of Complainant and its activities on the part of Respondent. Respondent has not answered Complainant or given any explanation why it has registered the Domain Name. Complainant has also provided evidence that the Domain Name has been used for the purposes of fraud. As such the Domain Name has clearly been registered and used in bad faith for the purposes of causing and taking advantage of confusion on the Internet and causing disruption. As such the Panel holds that Complainant has satisfied the third limb of the Policy under s 4 (b)(iii) and (iv).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <cognizanttech.org> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Dated: March 1, 2017
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page