Carahsoft Technology Corp. v. Rick Monty
Claim Number: FA2209002013050
Complainant is Carahsoft Technology Corp. (“Complainant”), represented by Adam D. Mandell of Millen, White, Zelano & Branigan, P.C., Virginia, USA. Respondent is Rick Monty (“Respondent”), California, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <carehsoft.com>, registered with NameCheap, Inc..
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, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <carehsoft.com> domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameCheap, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameCheap, Inc. 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 23, 2022, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of October 13, 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@carehsoft.com. Also on September 23, 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 states that, since at least as early as 1999, it has used the trademark CARAHSOFT in connection with value-added reseller services, namely, distributorship services featuring information technology (“IT”) products. Complainant provides information regarding technology products, services and training to federal state, state and local governments, educational institutions and prime contractors. Complainant also provides under the CARAHSOFT mark IT services, a website featuring information in the IT field, technology consultation services and educational services. Complainant’s team includes more than 2,000 sales, marketing, customer service and contracting professionals. For years, sales of goods and services offered under the CARAHSOFT mark have exceeded billions of dollars on an annual basis. By way of example, in 2020, sales of IT hardware, software and consulting services under the CARAHSOFT mark were in excess of eight billion United States dollars ($8,000,000,000.00). Over the years, Complainant has received more than 100 awards from its partners in recognition for outstanding performance. The company has also been recognized by numerous industry publications and media outlets as a fast growth, top revenue producing company. Complainant registered the mark CARAHSOFT in the United States in 2009. The mark is well known.
Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its CARAHSOFT mark as it consists of a misspelling of the mark (the second letter “a” is replaced by the letter “e”), merely adding the generic top-level domain (gTLD) “.com”.
According to Complainant, Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name because the name is not being used. Respondent used a privacy service to conceal its identity.
Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith because Respondent engaged in typosquatting. The disputed domain name does not resolve to an active website. Respondent used a privacy service to conceal its identity. Complainant believes that the domain name was registered, and is being used, to impersonate the Complainant, by sending emails to technology vendors, prime contractors, systems integrators, value-added resellers and channel partners. The purpose of these emails is to trick victims into providing to the fraudsters personal information and payments.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant owns rights in the mark CARAHSOFT dating back to at least 2009 and uses it to market IT products and services. The mark is well known.
The disputed domain name was registered in 2022.
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark.
The disputed domain name is not being used.
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 CARAHSOFT mark (the second letter “a” is replaced by the letter “e”), merely adding the generic top-level domain (gTLD) “.com”. Previous Panels have held that misspelling or swapping letters 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); see also Minerva S.A v. Ozril Peters, D2018-2177 (WIPO November 13, 2018) (“The replacement of the letter “v” for the visually and phonetically similar letter “u” in the “minerua” portion of the Domain Name is disregarded, as it is not readily noticeable”). 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 “Rick Monty”. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
The disputed domain name is not being used. Failure to make an active use of a domain name demonstrates that Respondent is not using the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial fair use. See Bloomberg L.P. v. SC Media Servs. & Info. SRL, FA 296583 (Forum Sept. 2, 2004) (“Respondent is wholly appropriating Complainant’s mark and is not using the <bloomberg.ro> domain name in connection with an active website. The Panel finds that the [failure to make an active use] of a domain name that is identical to Complainant’s mark is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and it is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). And the Panel finds that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name may be used to engage in phishing, but it provides no evidence to support that allegation. As noted above, the Panel need not take into account allegations that are not supported by evidence. See also Chris Pearson v. Domain Admin / Automattic, Inc., FA 1613723 (Forum Jul. 3, 2015) (finding that the complainant could not establish the respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith because it failed to present evidence that would support such a holding).
According to paragraph 4.8 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0”), a Panel may conduct limited factual research regarding disputed domain names:
Noting in particular the general powers of a panel articulated inter alia in paragraphs 10 and 12 of the UDRP Rules, it has been accepted that a panel may undertake limited factual research into matters of public record if it would consider such information useful to assessing the case merits and reaching a decision.
This may include visiting the website linked to the disputed domain name in order to obtain more information about the respondent or its use of the domain name, consulting historical resources such as the Internet Archive (www.archive.org) in order to obtain an indication of how a domain name may have been used in the relevant past, reviewing dictionaries or encyclopedias (e.g., Wikipedia), or accessing trademark registration databases.
There do not appear to be MX records for the disputed domain name, therefore it does not appear to be used for email at present.
The Panel finds that Complainant has failed to satisfy its burden of proof for the allegation of phishing and it will not further discuss the allegation.
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 disputed domain name is not being used. According to paragraph 3.3 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0): “From the inception of the UDRP, panelists have found that the non-use of a domain name (including a blank or “coming soon” page) would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. While panelists will look at the totality of the circumstances in each case, factors that have been considered relevant in applying the passive holding doctrine include: (i) the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant’s mark, (ii) the failure of the respondent to submit a response or to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good-faith use, (iii) the respondent’s concealing its identity or use of false contact details (noted to be in breach of its registration agreement), and (iv) the implausibility of any good faith use to which the domain name may be put.”
In the present case, Complainant’s trademark is well known. It is difficult to envisage any use of the disputed domain name that would not violate the Policy, see Morgan Stanley v. TONY / shentony, FA 1637186 (Forum Oct. 10, 2015) (“Respondent registered the disputed domain name [MORGANSTANLEY.ONLINE] in bad faith because . . . it is difficult to envisage any use of the disputed domain name that would not violate the Policy”); see also Singapore Airlines Ltd. v. European Travel Network, D2000-0641 (WIPO Aug. 29, 2000) (where selection of disputed domain name is so obviously connected to complainant’s well-known trademark, use by someone with no connection with complainant suggests opportunistic bad faith); see also Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc., Sheraton Int’l IP, LLC, Westin Hotel Mgmt., L.P. v. Jingjing Tang, D2014-1040 (WIPO Aug. 19, 2014) (“The Panel finds that the [WESTIN] Marks are not such that could legitimately be adopted by traders other than for the purpose of creating an impression of an association with Complainant. Thus, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain names were registered in bad faith”).
There has been no response to the Complaint and Respondent used a privacy service, that is, it attempted to conceal its identity. Given these circumstances, the Panel finds that, in this particular case, a finding of bad faith use can be inferred even though the disputed domain name is not being actively used. See Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, D2000-0003 (WIPO Feb. 18, 2000).
Further, by merely replacing 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).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <carehsoft.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Richard Hill, Panelist
Dated: October 20, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page