Parchment LLC v. Carol
Claim Number: FA2209002013007
Complainant is Parchment LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Dwayne K. Goetzel, Texas. Respondent is Carol (“Respondent”), CN.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <parchnment.com>, 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.
Richard Hill as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on September 21, 2022; Forum received payment on September 21, 2022.
On September 22, 2022, PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <parchnment.com> 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 22, 2022, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of October 12, 2022 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@parchnment.com. Also on September 22, 2022, 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, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On October 20, 2022, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Richard Hill as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that 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, 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 provides trademark certificates, and print-outs of its web site, according to which it is in the business of providing educational service, specifically obtaining, managing, providing, and exchanging education-related credentials, transcripts, student records and documents, and school and university records and documents. It provides online delivery of such documents via a global computer network. Complainant claims rights in the mark PARCHMENT through its registration in the United States in 2012.
Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its PARCHMENT mark because it is a simple misspelling of the mark (an extra letter “n” is added between the letters “h” and “m”).
According to Complainant, Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Complaint to use its mark. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, the disputed domain name was used to set up a page to “spoof” Complainant. Specifically, a page at <exchange.parchnment.com> fraudulently purports to be a site where a University of Toronto document provided by Complainant can be downloaded. Thus Respondent is engaged in fraud, creating a page that is an attempt to make a university believe that the email and information regarding a university transcript request came from Complainant, when in fact it did not.
Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith because Respondent clearly knows of Complainant, having set up a page to “spoof” Complainant, by passing on fraudulent information regarding education transcripts, which is intended to mislead universities into thinking Complainant sent the information. Respondent engaged in typosquatting.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant owns rights in the mark PARCHMENT dating back to 2012 and uses it to provide online school and university records and documents.
The disputed domain name was registered in 2022.
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark.
The disputed domain name was used to set up a page that fraudulently purported to enable downloading a document provided by Complainant.
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 set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at ¶ 4.3; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (“Because Complainant did not produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations [. . .] the Panel finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint”).
The disputed domain name consists of a misspelling Complainant’s PARCHMENT mark (a letter “n” is added between the letters “h” and “m”), merely adding the generic top-level domain (gTLD) “.com”. Previous Panels have held that misspelling does not negate confusing similarity between a domain name and a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Coachella Music Festival, LLC v. Domain Administrator / China Capital Investment Limited, FA 1734230 (Forum July 17, 2017) (“The addition of letters—particularly of those that create a common misspelling—fails to sufficiently distinguish a domain name from a registered mark.”); see also Intelius, Inc. v. Hyn, FA 703175 (Forum July 5, 2006) (finding the <intellus.com> domain name to be confusingly similar to the complainant’s INTELIUS mark because the domain name differed from the mark by one letter and was visually similar). Thus the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name: under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), WHOIS information may be used to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by a disputed domain name. See Radio Flyer Inc. v. er nong wu, FA 2011001919893 (Forum Dec. 16, 2020) (“Here, the WHOIS information lists “er nong wu” as the registrant and no information suggests Complainant has authorized Respondent to use the RADIO FLYER mark in any way. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).”). Here, the WHOIS information of record identifies the registrant as “Carol”. Therefore the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
The resolving website fraudulently purports to allow downloading a document provided by Complainant. Specifically, Complainant provides evidence showing that a page at <exchange.parchnment.com> fraudulently purports to be a site where a University of Toronto document provided by Complainant can be downloaded. This is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See Ranbaxy Laboratories Inc. v. Johnny Carpela, FA0810001231644 (Forum Dec. 10, 2008) (finding that a website which fraudulently purported to be a reference site for a brand name medication was not bona fide or legitimate.); see also State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. LaFaive, FA95407 (Forum Sept. 27, 2000) (“[U]nauthorized providing of information and services under a mark owned by a third party cannot be said to be the bona fide offering of goods or services.”). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent does not use the disputed domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or ¶ 4(c)(iii). And the Panel finds that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Respondent (who did not reply to Complainant’s contentions) has not presented any plausible explanation for its use of Complainant’s mark. In accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel shall draw such inferences from Respondent’s failure to reply as it considers appropriate. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent did not have a legitimate use in mind when registering the disputed domain name.
Indeed, as already noted, the resolving website purported to offer educational documents, thus competing with Complainant. See United Parcel Service of America, Inc. v. Jamie Hans FA1901001826973 (Forum Feb. 25, 2019) (“Respondent registered two domain names that combine Complainant's well-known mark with generic terms relating to Complainant's business, and is using them to impersonate Complainant, presumably for fraudulent purposes. Such conduct is indicative of bad faith registration and use under the Policy.”); see also Society for the Promotion of Japanese Animation v. In Stealth Mode, citing S. Exposure v. S. Exposure, Inc., FA 94864 (Forum July 18, 2000) (respondent acted in bad faith by attracting Internet users to website that competes with complainant’s business); see also Puckett v. Miller, D2000-0297 (WIPO June 12, 2000) (respondent diverted business from complainant to competing website in violation of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)); see also Monsanto Co. v. Decepticons, FA 101536 (Forum Dec. 18, 2001) (finding that the respondent's use of <monsantos.com> to misrepresent itself as the complainant and to provide misleading information to the public supported a finding of bad faith). Therefore the Panel finds that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and/or (iv).
Further, by merely adding one letter in Complainant’s mark, Respondent engages in typosquatting. A finding of typosquatting can evince bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Webster Financial Corporation and Webster Bank, National Association v. Zhichao Yang, FA2110001970133 (Forum Nov. 24, 2021) (“Typosquatting is a practice whereby a domain name registrant deliberately introduces typographical errors or misspellings into a domain name hoping that internet users will inadvertently type the malformed string when searching for products or services associated with the target trademark, or will otherwise confuse the misspelled trademark laden domain name with its target trademark, a web address, an email address, or some other reference to the mark holder.”); see also Computerized Sec. Sys., Inc. v. Hu, FA 157321 (Forum June 23, 2003) (finding that the respondent engaged in typosquatting, which is evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)); see also Sports Auth. Mich., Inc. v. Skander, FA 135598 (Forum Jan. 7, 2002) (stating that “[b]y registering the ‘typosquatted’ domain name in [Complainant’s] affiliate program, Respondent profits on the goodwill of [Complainant’s] protected marks and primary Internet domain names,” which is evidence of bad faith registration and use). As such, the Panel finds bad faith typosquatting under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Finally, Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s mark: Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name indicates that it knew of Complainant, its business, and its mark. While constructive notice is insufficient to demonstrate bad faith, actual knowledge of a complainant’s rights in a mark prior to registration may be evidence of bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Custom Modular Direct LLC v. Custom Modular Homes Inc., FA 1140580 (Forum Apr. 8, 2008) (“There is no place for constructive notice under the Policy.”); see also Orbitz Worldwide, LLC v. Domain Librarian, FA 1535826 (Forum Feb. 6, 2014) (“The Panel notes that although the UDRP does not recognize ‘constructive notice’ as sufficient grounds for finding Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) bad faith, the Panel here finds actual knowledge through the name used for the domain and the use made of it.”); see also Univision Comm'cns Inc. v. Norte, FA 1000079 (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). The Panel finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the mark prior to Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name and that this constitutes bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <parchnment.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Richard Hill, Panelist
Dated: October 21, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page