Huron Consulting Group Inc. v. David Moynihan
Claim Number: FA1605001674325
Complainant is Huron Consulting Group Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Genevieve E. Charlton of Barnes & Thornburg LLP, Illinois, United States. Respondent is David Moynihan (“Respondent”), Missouri, United States.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <huronconsulltinggroup.com> (the “Domain Name”) registered with GoDaddy.com, 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 Legal as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on May 10, 2016; the Forum received payment on May 10, 2016.
On May 11, 2016, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <huronconsulltinggroup.com> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, 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 May 12, 2016, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of June 1, 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@huronconsulltinggroup.com. Also on May 12, 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 June 6, 2016, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Dawn Osborne of Palmer Biggs Legal 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 submissions can be summarised as follows:
Complainant is a worldwide business consultancy firm which has used the marks HURON, HURON CONSULTING and HURON CONSULTING GROUP since at least 2002. It owns several federal trade mark registrations for its HURON CONSULTANCY GROUP marks in the USA where the Respondent is based.
The Domain Name was registered on March 16, 2016. The Domain Name is merely a typosquatting variation of the Complainant's marks in that it misspells consultancy by adding an extra 'L'. Such misspellings are insufficient to overcome a finding of confusing similarity. The addition of a gTLD such as .com here does not distinguish a domain name from a trade mark under the Policy. Accordingly the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a mark in which the Complainant has rights.
Respondent has not used the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. It is not making non-commercial fair use of the Domain Name which currently resolves to an inactive web site. Complainant is not affiliated with the Respondent in any way and the Respondent is not authorised to use the Complainant’s mark or commonly known by the Domain Name. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name.
Respondent registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith because Respondent engaged in typosquatting, is not actively using the Domain Name and registered the Domain Name using a privacy service to hide Respondent’s identity all with knowledge of the Complainant’s rights in the HURON CONSULTANCY GROUP marks. The Complainant is concerned about possible phishing or scam activity although it has no evidence of the same.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant is a business consultancy firm which has used the mark HURON CONSULTING GROUP since at least 2002. It owns federal trade mark registrations for its HURON CONSULTANCY GROUP marks in the USA where the Respondent is based, with first use in commerce recorded as 2002.
The Domain Name was registered on March 16, 2016. It has resolved to an error message and is inactive.
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.”).
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Domain Name consists of a misspelling of the Complainant’s HURON CONSULTANCY GROUP registered mark, merely adding an extra 'l' in consultancy and the gTLD .com. The Panel agrees with the Complainant that the alterations to the Complainant's mark, adding a letter, but remaining phonetically the same, does not negate the confusingly similarity between the Complainant's mark and the Domain Name pursuant to the Policy. See Twitch Interactive Inc. v. Antonio Teggi, FA 1626528 (Forum Aug. 3, 2015)(finding the twitcch.tv domain name confusingly similar to the TWITCH TV mark where an additional letter c was added to make a misspelling of the Complainant’s mark in the domain name.).
The addition of the gTLD .com does not serve to distinguish the Domain Name from the Complainant's mark. See Isleworth Land Co. v. Lost in Space SA, FA 117330 (Forum Sept. 27, 2002)(It is a well-established principle that generic meaning top level domains are irrelevant when conducting a Policy 4(a)(i) analysis.).
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.
Respondent has not responded and given any reasons for its registration and use of the Domain Name. Respondent does not appear to be commonly known by the Domain Name. Complainant has not authorised the use of its mark and the Respondent does not appear to be connected with the Complainant in any way. Domain Name is not being used for any bona fide purpose.
Additionally the Domain Name appears to be a typosquatted version of the Complainant's mark chosen in the hope that a customer might mistakenly reach Respondent's web site by using an additional 'l'. See Amazon.com, Inc. v. JJ Domains, FA 514939 (Forum Sept 2, 2005) (respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name because it constituted typosquatting)
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.
Finally, typosquatting itself is evidence of relevant bad faith registration and use. See Vanguard Group Inc. v. IQ Mgmt. Corp FA 328127 (Forum Oct 28, 2004) (By engaging in typosquatting respondent has registered and used the vangard.com domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy 4(a)(iii)).
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 and there is no need to consider additional grounds for a finding of bad faith put forward by the 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 <huronconsulltinggroup.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Dawn Osborne, Panelist
Dated: June16, 2016
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page