Carahsoft Technology Corp. v. azure port / azu
Claim Number: FA2302002032414
Complainant is Carahsoft Technology Corp. (“Complainant”), represented by Adam D. Mandell of Millen, White, Zelano & Branigan, P.C., Virginia. Respondent is azure port / azu (“Respondent”), US.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <carahsofft.com>, registered with Wild West Domains, LLC.
PANEL
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.
Alan L. Limbury, as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 17, 2023. Forum received payment on February 17, 2023.
On February 20, 2023, Wild West Domains, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <carahsofft.com> domain name is registered with Wild West Domains, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Wild West Domains, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Wild West Domains, 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 February 24, 2023, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 16, 2023 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@carahsofft.com. Also on February 24, 2023, 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 March 22, 2023, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Alan L. Limbury 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, Carahsoft Technology Corp., provides information regarding technology products, services and training. Complainant has rights in the CARAHSOFT mark through registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office. The <carahsofft.com> domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s CARAHSOFT mark.
Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <carahsofft.com> domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name, nor has Complainant authorized or licensed Respondent to use its CARAHSOFT mark in the domain name. Respondent does not use the domain name in connection with any bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate non-commercial or fair use. The domain name does not have a resolving webpage and a search for the domain name returns the error message: “This site can’t be reached”. The domain name appears to be a typosquatted registration which does not resolve to an active web site. Typosquatting can be evidence that a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name. See, e.g., Carahsoft Technology Corp. v. Zoe Davis, FA 1981717 (Forum Feb. 28, 2022) (<carahsofft.org>).
Respondent registered and uses the typosquatted <carahsofft.com> domain name in bad faith. Although the domain name does not resolve to an active webpage, it has set up an MX account, which may be used to send phishing emails impersonating Complainant. Respondent’s bad faith may also be demonstrated through its use of a privacy service in the domain name’s WHOIS information.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant has established all the elements entitling it to relief.
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”).
Complainant has shown that it has rights in the CARAHSOFT mark through registration with the USPTO (e.g. Reg. No. 3,685,627, registered on September 22, 2009). The Panel finds Respondent’s <carahsofft.com> domain name to be virtually identical and confusingly similar to Complainant’s CARAHSOFT mark as it incorporates the mark in its entirety, except for the addition of the letter “f”, which does nothing to distinguish the domain name from the mark, and the inconsequential “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”), which may be ignored.
Complainant has established this element.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
(i) before any notice to Respondent of the dispute, the use by Respondent of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or
(ii) Respondent (as an individual, business or other organization) has been commonly known by the domain name, even if Respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
(iii) Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert customers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.
The clearly typosquatted <carahsofft.com> domain name was registered on January 8, 2023, many years after Complainant has shown that its mark had become very well-known. It does not resolve to an active website but has been set up with an MX account, which could allow the domain name to be used to send phishing emails impersonating Complainant.
These circumstances, together with Complainant’s assertions, are sufficient to constitute a prima facie showing of absence of rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name on the part of Respondent. The evidentiary burden therefore shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the <carahsofft.com> domain name. See JUUL Labs, Inc. v. Dryx Emerson / KMF Events LTD, FA1906001849706 (Forum July 17, 2019). Respondent has made no attempt to do so.
The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name.
Complainant has established this element.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
The four illustrative circumstances set out in paragraph 4(b) of the Policy as evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) are not exclusive.
The circumstances set out above in relation to the second element satisfy the Panel that Respondent was fully aware of Complainant’s very well-known CARAHSOFT mark when Respondent registered the <carahsofft.com> domain name, which is clearly a deliberately typosquatted version of Complainant’s mark. There is no plausible explanation for the registration of the domain name other than to take advantage of the goodwill of Complainant. See Yahoo! Inc. and GeoCities v. Cupcakes, Cupcake City, Cupcake Confidential, Cupcake-Party, Cupcake Parade, and John Zuccarini, Case No. D2000-0777 (WIPO Oct. 2, 2000).
Typosquatting is independent evidence of bad faith registration and use of a domain name per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Homer TLC, Inc. v. Artem Ponomarev, FA1623825 (Forum July 20, 2015).
The Panel also notes that Respondent registered the domain name with a false address, an additional indication of bad faith.
Complainant has established this element.
DECISION
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 <carahsofft.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Alan L. Limbury, Panelist
Dated: March 23, 2023.
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page