Brighthouse Services, LLC v. Protection Domain
Claim Number: FA1807001799170
Complainant is Brighthouse Services, LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Minnie Kim of Moore & Van Allen PLLC, North Carolina, USA. Respondent is Above.com Domain Privacy (“Respondent”), Panama.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <brighthhousefinancial.com>, registered with Above.com Pty Ltd.
The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially, and, to the best of his knowledge, has no conflict of interests in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Terry F. Peppard as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on July 30, 2018; the Forum received payment on July 30, 2018.
On August 1, 2018, Above.com Pty Ltd. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <brighthhousefinancial.com> domain name is registered with Above.com Pty Ltd. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Above.com Pty Ltd. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Above.com Pty Ltd. 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 August 14, 2018, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 4, 2018 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@brighthhousefinancial.com. Also, on August 14, 2018, 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 September 5, 2018, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Terry F. Peppard as sole Panelist in this proceeding.
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 a response from Respondent.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant is a public financial services company concentrating in the insurance and annuity markets.
Complainant has used the BRIGHTHOUSE FINANCIAL mark to promote its financial services since at least October 2016.
Complainant holds a registration for the BRIGHTHOUSE FINANCIAL service mark, which is on file with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) as Registry No. 5,287,259, registered as of September 12, 2017, application having been filed as of May 4, 2016.
Respondent registered the <brighthhousefinancial.com> domain name on or about April 7, 2017.
The domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s BRIGHTHOUSE FINANCIAL mark.
Respondent has not been commonly known by the domain name.
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use the BRIGHTHOUSE FINANCIAL mark.
Respondent does not employ the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.
Rather, the domain name appears to resolve to a parked webpage with various sponsored links.
Respondent presumably uses the domain name to profit from the operation of the sponsored links displayed on the resolving website through the receipt of pay-per-click fees.
Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name.
The domain name is an instance of typo-squatting.
Respondent knew of Complainant’s BRIGHTHOUSE FINANCIAL mark when it registered the domain name.
Respondent registered and uses the domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
(1) the domain name registered by Respondent is confusingly similar to a service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
(2) Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(3) the same domain name was registered and is being used by Respondent in bad faith.
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:
ii. Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
iii. the domain name has been registered and is being used by Respondent in bad faith.
In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel will, pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules, decide this proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations, and, pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, draw such inferences as it deems appropriate. The Panel is entitled to accept as true all reasonable allegations and inferences set out in the Complaint unless the evidence is clearly contradictory. See Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Forum July 31, 2000) (finding that a respondent’s failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of a UDRP complaint to be deemed true). See also Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009 (WIPO February 29, 2000): “In the absence of a response, it is appropriate to accept as true all allegations of the Complaint.”
Complainant has rights in the BRIGHTHOUSE FINANCIAL service mark sufficient for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) by virtue of its registration of the mark with a national trademark authority, the USPTO. See Humor Rainbow, Inc. v. James Lee, FA 1626154 (Forum August 11, 2015):
There exists an overwhelming consensus amongst UDRP panels that USPTO registrations are sufficient in demonstrating a complainant’s rights under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) .... Due to Complainant’s … USPTO registration …, the Panel agrees that it has sufficiently demonstrated its rights per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
The record reflects that Respondent’s domain name registration, of April 7, 2017, predates the registration of Complainant’s mark, which became effective on September 12, 2017. However, it is well established that a UDRP complainant’s rights in a registered mark date from the filing of its trademark registration application, which occurred here on May 4, 2016. Thus, Complainant’s rights in its registered mark have time priority over Respondent’s rights, if any, in its domain name for purposes of the Policy. See, for example, ADP, LLC v. Dennis Shifrin / Streamline, FA 1732114 (Forum June 13, 2017), (finding that “the relevant date for Complainant’s mark is the filing date.”).
It is likewise well established that Complainant’s rights in its mark are secure under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) notwithstanding that they arise from registration of the mark in a jurisdiction (here the United States) other than that in which Respondent resides or does business (here Panama). See, for example, W.W. Grainger, Inc. v. Above.com Domain Privacy, FA 1334458 (Forum August 24, 2010):
[T]he Panel finds that USPTO registration is sufficient to establish these [Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)] rights even when Respondent lives or operates in a different country.
Turning to the core question posed by Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), we conclude from a review of the record that Respondent’s <brighthhousefinancial.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s BRIGHTHOUSE FINANCIAL service mark. The domain name contains the mark in its entirety, merely eliminating the space between its terms and adding a duplicative letter “h,” plus the generic Top Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com.” These alterations of the mark, made in forming the domain name, do not save it from the realm of confusing similarity under the standards of the Policy. See OpenTable, Inc. v. Above.com Domain Privacy, FA 1626187 (Forum August 10, 2015):
Respondent’s … domain name is confusingly similar to the [UDRP complainant’s] … mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) because the disputed domain merely adds the letter ‘i’ ....
See also Trip Network Inc. v. Alviera, FA 914943 (Forum March 27, 2007) (finding that adding a gTLD to the mark of another in creating a domain name is irrelevant to a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis). This is because every domain name requires a gTLD.
Under Policy 4(a)(ii), Complainant must make a prima facie showing that Respondent lacks rights to and legitimate interests in the challenged <brighthhousefinancial.com> domain name, whereupon the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have such rights or interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum August 18, 2006) (finding that a UDRP complainant must make a prima facie case that a respondent lacks rights to or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name under UDRP¶ 4(a)(ii) before the burden shifts to that respondent to show that it does have such rights or interests). See also AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Forum September 25, 2006):
Complainant must … make a prima facie showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names, which burden is light. If Complainant satisfies its burden, … the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain names.
Complainant has made out a sufficient prima facie showing under this head of the Policy. Respondent’s failure to respond to the Complaint therefore permits us to infer that Respondent does not have rights to or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. See Desotec N.V. v. Jacobi Carbons AB, D2000-1398 (WIPO December 21, 2000) (finding that a respondent’s failure to respond to a UDRP complaint allows a presumption that a complainant’s allegations are true unless they are clearly contradicted by the evidence). Nonetheless, we will examine the record before us, in light of the several considerations set out in Policy ¶ 4(c) (i)-(iii), to determine whether there is in it any basis for concluding that Respondent has rights to or legitimate interests in the contested domain name that are cognizable under the Policy.
We begin by noting that Complainant contends, and Respondent does not deny, that Respondent has not been commonly known by the disputed domain name, <brighthhousefinancial.com>, and that Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use the BRIGHTHOUSE FINANCIAL mark. Moreover, the pertinent WHOIS information identifies the registrant of the domain name only as “Above.com Domain Privacy,” which does not resemble the domain name. On this record, we conclude that Respondent has not been commonly known by the disputed domain name so as to have acquired rights to or legitimate interests in it within the ambit of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Chevron Intellectual Property LLC v. Fred Wallace, FA1506001626022 (Forum July 27, 2015) (finding, under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), that a respondent was not commonly known by the <chevron-europe.com> domain name where the relevant WHOIS information identified its registrant only as “Fred Wallace.”); see also Navistar International Corporation v. N Rahmany, FA1505001620789 (Forum June 8, 2015) (finding, under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), that a respondent was not commonly known by a disputed domain name where a UDRP complainant had not authorized that respondent to incorporate its mark in a domain name).
We next observe that Complainant asserts, without objection from Respondent, that Respondent uses the <brighthhousefinancial.com> domain name only to resolve to a website that contains hyperlinks redirecting Internet users to a website featuring services that directly compete with the business of Complainant, presumably to the benefit of Respondent from the receipt of pay-per-click fees. This use is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services by means of the domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of it under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) such as would confirm in Respondent rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name as provided in those subsections of the Policy. See, for example, Ashley Furniture Industries, Inc. v. domain admin / private registrations aktien gesellschaft, FA1506001626253 (Forum July 29, 2015):
Respondent is using the disputed domain name to resolve to a web page containing advertising links to products that compete with those of Complainant. The Panel finds that this does not constitute a bona fide offering or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.
The Panel therefore finds that Complainant has satisfied the proof requirements of Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
We are persuaded by the evidence that Respondent uses the contested <brighthhousefinancial.com> domain name, which we have found to be confusingly similar to Complainant’s BRIGHTHOUSE FINANCIAL service mark, to attempt to profit from the confusion thus caused among Internet users as to the possibility of Complainant’s association with the domain name. Under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv), this stands as proof of Respondent’s bad faith in registering and using the domain name. See, for example, American Council on Education and GED Testing Service LLC v. Anthony Williams, FA1760954 (Forum January 8, 2018):
Respondent’s hosting of links to Complainant’s competitors demonstrates bad faith registration and use of the … domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
We are also convinced by the evidence that Respondent knew of Complainant and its rights in the BRIGHTHOUSE FINANCIAL mark when Respondent registered the <brighthhousefinancial.com> domain name. This further demonstrates Respondent’s bad faith in registering the domain name. See Univision Comm'cns Inc. v. Norte, FA 1000079 (Forum August 16, 2007) (rejecting a respondent's contention that it did not register a domain name in bad faith where a panel found that that respondent knew of a UDRP complainant's rights in a mark when it registered a confusingly similar domain name).
The Panel thus finds that Complainant has met its obligations of proof under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Complainant having established all three elements required to be proven under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that the relief requested must be, and it is hereby, GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <brighthhousefinancial.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED forthwith from Respondent to Complainant.
Terry F. Peppard, Panelist
Dated: September 13, 2018
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page