Robert Half International Inc. v. MORITZ SCHNETZLER
Claim Number: FA1605001674529
Complainant is Robert Half International Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Robert S. Weisbein of Foley & Lardner LLP, New York, USA. Respondent is MORITZ SCHNETZLER (“Respondent”), Canada.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <roberthaif.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.
The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and, to the best of his knowledge, has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.) as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on May 11, 2016; the Forum received payment on May 11, 2016.
On May 12, 2016, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <roberthaif.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 13, 2016, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of June 2, 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@roberthaif.com. Also on May 13, 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 8, 2016, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed the Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (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, Robert Half International Inc., is an employment placement and staffing services provider that has operated within the United States since 1948. Complainant’s rights in the ROBERT HALF mark stem from registration of the mark with trademark agencies throughout the world including the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 1,156, 612, registered June 2, 1981). Respondent’s domain <roberthaif.com> is virtually identical to the ROBERT HALF mark and is an example of typosquatting as the domain only differs through the substitution of the letter “L” with the letter “I.”
Respondent, MORITZ SCHNETZLER, has no rights or legitimate interests in the <roberthaif.com> domain name. Respondent cannot show that it is commonly known by the disputed domain name as demonstrated by WHOIS information. Additionally, Respondent’s typosquatting behavior and the use of the domain, to resolve to a parked website hosting sponsored links, is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.
Respondent registered and is using the <roberthaif.com> domain name in bad faith. Respondent intended to exploit the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain and the ROBERT HALF mark for commercial gain. Additionally, Respondent’s bad faith is evident through Respondent’s attempt to pass off as Complainant through using an email account associated with the domain to create fake job postings purportedly on behalf of “Robert Half Technology.” Finally, Respondent had knowledge of the ROBERT HALF mark at the time of registration based on the fame and notoriety of the mark.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant is an employment placement and staffing services provider that has operated within the United States since 1948. Complainant has rights in the ROBERT HALF mark through registration with trademark agencies throughout the world including the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 1,156, 612, registered June 2, 1981). Respondent’s domain <roberthaif.com> is confusingly similar to the ROBERT HALF mark.
Respondent registered the <roberthaif.com> domain name on January 6, 2016.
Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <roberthaif.com> domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Respondent has engaged in typosquatting. The domain name resolves to a parked website hosting sponsored links.
Respondent registered and is using the <roberthaif.com> domain name in bad faith. Respondent intended to exploit the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain and the ROBERT HALF mark for commercial gain. Respondent’s bad faith is evident through attempting to pass off as Complainant through using an email account associated with the domain to create fake job postings purportedly on behalf of “Robert Half Technology.” Respondent had knowledge of the ROBERT HALF mark at the time of 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.”).
Complainant has rights in the ROBERT HALF mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through registration with trademark agencies throughout the world including the USPTO. See AOL LLC v. Interrante, FA 681239 (Forum May 23, 2006) (the complainant’s evidence of registration with the USPTO established the complainant’s rights in the mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)).
Respondent’s <roberthaif.com> domain is confusingly similar to the ROBERT HALF mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) as the domain merely differs through the replacement of the letter “L” with the letter “I.”
Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). The WHOIS information lists “MORITZ SCHNETZLER” as registrant of the <roberthaif.com> domain. See Instron Corp. v. Kaner, FA 768859 (Forum Sept. 21, 2006) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain names because the WHOIS information listed “Andrew Kaner c/o Electromatic a/k/a Electromatic Equip't” as the registrant and there was no other evidence in the record to suggest that the respondent was commonly known by the domain names in dispute).
Respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interests is shown through Respondent’s typosquatting. See Chegg Inc. v. yang qijin, FA1503001610050 (Forum April 23, 2015) (“Users might mistakenly reach Respondent’s resolving website by misspelling Complainant’s mark. Taking advantage of Internet users’ typographical errors, known as typosquatting, demonstrates a respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interests under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).”).
Respondent has not made a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain because the domain resolves to a parked website displaying various sponsored listings. See Materia, Inc. v. Michele Dinoia, FA1507001627209 (Forum August 20, 2015) (“The Panel finds that Respondent is using a confusingly similar domain name to redirect users to a webpage with unrelated hyperlinks, that Respondent has no other rights to the domain name, and finds that Respondent is not making a bona fide offering or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.”).
Respondent intended to exploit the likelihood of confusion between the <roberthaif.com> domain and the ROBERT HALF mark for commercial gain. Respondent’s domain resolves to a parked website hosting various unrelated advertisements. Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Williams-Sonoma, Inc. v. Fees, FA 937704 (Forum Apr. 25, 2007) (holding that the use of a confusingly similar domain name to display links to various third-party websites demonstrated bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)).
Respondent’s bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) is evident through Respondent’s attempt to use an email to pass off as Complainant. Panels have found bad faith where a respondent used an email address connected to a domain name in a fraudulent manner. See SHUAA Capital psc v. Oba Junkie / shuaa capital psc, FA14009001581255 (Forum October 29, 2014) (“The Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the domain name’s e-mail suffix for fraudulent purposes illustrates Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) bad faith.”).
Respondent registered the <roberthaif.com> domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the ROBERT HALF mark. Therefore, Respondent registered the domain in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Univision Comm'cns Inc. v. Norte, FA 1000079 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 16, 2007) (rejecting the respondent's contention that it did not register the disputed domain name in bad faith since the panel found that the respondent had knowledge of the complainant's rights in the UNIVISION mark when registering the disputed domain name).
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 <roberthaif.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.), Panelist
Dated: June 18, 2016
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page