Quanta Services, Inc. v. Justin Ford
Claim Number: FA1609001693336
Complainant is Quanta Services, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Garrett Corneilson. Texas, USA. Respondent is Justin Ford (“Respondent”), Texas, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <quantaservices.net>, registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com.
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 September 12, 2016; the Forum received payment on September 12, 2016.
On September 15, 2016, PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <quantaservices.net> domain name is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com 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 September 16, 2016, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of October 6, 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@quantaservices.net. Also on September 16, 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 October 12, 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 has rights in the QUANTA SERVICES mark based on registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 2,410,600 registered December 5, 2000). Respondent’s domain name is identical to Complainant’s QUANTA SERVICES mark.
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name as only Complainant has rights in the QUANTA SERVICES mark.
Respondent has engaged in fraud by attempting to pass itself off as the Chief Financial Officer of Complainant and does so in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. The disputed domain name was created on May 5, 2016.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s valid and subsisting trademark rights in and to the mark QUANTA SERVICES, 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 of the disputed domain name.
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 Complainant’s valid and subsisting trademark, QUANTA SERVICES. The Complainant has adequately pled its interests in and to the mark. The Respondent arrives at the disputed domain name by taking the Complainant’s mark in its entirety, deleting a space, and appending the g TLD “.net.” This is insufficient to distinguish the disputed domain name from the Complainant’s mark.
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. Although the Complainant does not allege so, it appears that the record is devoid of any evidence to indicate that Respondent is either commonly known as the disputed domain name or in possession of licensing rights. Where such a void exists, Respondent cannot have rights or legitimate interests under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
The Panel also finds that the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name does not consist of a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Complainant makes no allegations regarding this point as well; however, given the totality of the circumstances, and the fact that there is no evidence in the record to contradict such a finding, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in or to the disputed domain name.
Complainant claims that Respondent’s attempt to pass itself off as Complainant’s Chief Financial Officer in the disputed domain name is demonstrative of Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name appears to have been used in a connection with an email account that includes a signature featuring Complainant’s mark. See Compl., at Attached Annex B. Respondent appears to have used the name “Derrick A. Jensen” at the email “derrick.jensen@quantaservices.net” to attempt to purchase goods and services from vendors. See Id. Panels have held that an attempt to pass oneself off as a complainant using a confusingly similar disputed domain demonstrates bad faith. 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.”); Am. Online, Inc. v. Miles, FA 105890 (Forum May 31, 2002) (“Respondent is using the domain name at issue to resolve to a website at which Complainant’s trademarks and logos are prominently displayed. Respondent has done this with full knowledge of Complainant’s business and trademarks. The Panel finds that this conduct is that which is prohibited by Paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.”).
As such, the Panel finds that Respondent’s attempt to purchase goods using an email associated with the disputed domain name demonstrates bad faith.
Further, the use and registration of the identical trademark as used in the disputed domain name further evidences the Respondent’s actual knowledge of the Complainant’s prior rights and interests in and to the trademark QUANTA SERVICES. Therefore, given the totality of the circumstances, the Panel finds that the Respondent has engaged in bad faith use and registration of the disputed domain name.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be granted.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <quantaservices.net> domain name be transferred from the Respondent to the Complainant.
Kenneth L. Port, Panelist
Dated: October 13, 2016
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page