DECISION

 

Guess? IP Holder L.P. and Guess?, Inc. v. Abby Gracy

Claim Number: FA2310002067592

PARTIES

Complainant is Guess? IP Holder L.P. and Guess?, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Gary J. Nelson of Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP, California, USA. Respondent is Abby Gracy ("Respondent"), Washington, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME 

The domain name at issue is <guessjobs.us>, registered with NameCheap, Inc..

 

PANEL

The undersigned certifies that they have acted independently and impartially and to the best of their knowledge have no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.

 

Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on October 24, 2023; Forum received payment on October 24, 2023.

 

On October 24, 2023, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <guessjobs.us> 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 the U.S. Department of Commerce's usTLD Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy").

 

On October 25, 2023, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of November 14, 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@guessjobs.us. Also on October 25, 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 November 15, 2023, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Sandra J. Franklin 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 to the usTLD Dispute Resolution Policy ("Rules"). Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the usTLD Policy, usTLD 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.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PRELIMINARY ISSUE: MULTIPLE COMPLAINANTS

The relevant rules governing multiple complainants are UDRP Rule 3(a) and the Forum's Supplemental Rule 1(e). UDRP Rule 3(a) states, "Any person or entity may initiate an administrative proceeding by submitting a complaint." Forum's Supplemental Rule 1(e) defines "The Party Initiating a Complaint Concerning a Domain Name Registration" as a "single person or entity claiming to have rights in the domain name, or multiple persons or entities who have a sufficient nexus who can each claim to have rights to all domain names listed in the Complaint."

 

Previous panels have interpreted Forum's Supplemental Rule 1(e) to allow multiple parties to proceed as one party where they can show a sufficient link to each other. For example, in Vancouver Org. Comm. for the 2010 Olympic and Paralymic Games & Int'l Olympic Comm. v. Malik, FA 666119 (Forum May 12, 2006), the panel stated:

 

It has been accepted that it is permissible for two complainants to submit a single complaint if they can demonstrate a link between the two entities such as a relationship involving a license, a partnership or an affiliation that would establish the reason for the parties bringing the complaint as one entity.

 

There are two Complainants in this matter: Guess? IP Holder L.P. and Guess?, Inc. Guess? IP Holder L.P. is wholly owned by Guess?, Inc. The Panel therefore finds that there is a sufficient link between the named Complainants, and elects to treat them as one Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

1.       Respondent's <guessjobs.us> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's GUESS? mark.

 

2.       Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <guessjobs.us> domain name.

 

3.       Respondent registered and uses the <guessjobs.us> domain name in bad faith.

 

B. Respondent did not file a Response.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant is the well-known GUESS? retailer, and holds a registration for the GUESS? mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") (Reg. No. 1,271,896, registered Mar. 27, 1984).

 

Respondent registered the <guessjobs.us> domain name on October 11, 2023, and uses it to conduct an email phishing scam.

 

DISCUSSION

Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and 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 or is being used in bad faith.

 

Given the similarity between the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy ("UDRP") and the usTLD Policy, the Panel will draw upon UDRP precedent as applicable in rendering its decision.

 

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.").

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

The Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the GUESS? mark through registration with the USPTO. See Humor Rainbow, Inc. v. James Lee, FA 1626154 (Forum Aug. 11, 2015) (stating, "There exists an overwhelming consensus amongst UDRP panels that USPTO registrations are sufficient in demonstrating a complainant's rights under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) and its vested interests in a mark. . . . Due to Complainant's attached USPTO registration on the principal register at Exhibit 1, the Panel agrees that it has sufficiently demonstrated its rights per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).")

 

Respondent's <guessjobs.us> domain name uses Complainant's GUESS? mark, without the "?", and adds the word "jobs" and the ".us" TLD. These changes do not sufficiently distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Microsoft Corporation v. Thong Tran Thanh, FA 1653187 (Forum Jan. 21, 2016) (determining that confusing similarity exists where [a disputed domain name] contains Complainant's entire mark and differs only by the addition of a generic or descriptive phrase and top-level domain, the differences between the domain name and its contained trademark are insufficient to differentiate one from the other for the purposes of the Policy.); see also Dell Inc. v. Protection of Private Person / Privacy Protection, FA 1681432 (Forum Aug. 1, 2016) ("A TLD (whether a gTLD, sTLD or ccTLD) is disregarded under a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis because domain name syntax requires TLDs. Likewise, the absence of spaces must be disregarded under a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis because domain name syntax prohibits them.")  The Panel therefore finds that Respondent's <guessjobs.us> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's GUESS? mark.

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Once Complainant makes a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)); see also Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) ("Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests").

 

Complainant contends that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <guessjobs.us> domain name, as Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name. Complainant has not given Respondent permission to use its GUESS? mark in the disputed domain name.  The WHOIS identifies "Abby Gracy" as the registrant.  Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the <guessjobs.us> domain name, and thus has no rights under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Suzen Khan / Nancy Jain / Andrew Stanzy, FA 1741129 (Forum Aug. 16, 2017) (finding that respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names when the identifying information provided by WHOIS was unrelated to the domain names or respondent's use of the same); see also Navistar International Corporation v. N Rahmany, FA1505001620789 (Forum June 8, 2015) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name where the complainant had never authorized the respondent to incorporate its NAVISTAR mark in any domain name registration). 

 

Complainant argues that Respondent does not use the <guessjobs.us> domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or service or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use by using it in phishing emails to pass off as Complainant in a job interview scam. Using a disputed domain name to conduct a phishing scheme is not a bona fide offering of goods or service or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) or Policy ¶ 4(c)(iv).  See Microsoft Corporation v. Terrence Green / Whois Agent / Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc., FA 1661030 (Forum Apr. 4, 2016) (finding the respondent's use of the disputed domain names to send fraudulent emails purportedly from agents of complainant to be neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)). Complainant demonstrates that Respondent uses the disputed domain name to scam job seekers and solicit their personal information. The Panel finds that this is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, and thus Respondent has no rights under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) or Policy ¶ 4(c)(iv).

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

 

Registration or Use in Bad Faith

Complainant contends that Respondent registered and uses the <guessjobs.us> domain name in bad faith to conduct a phishing scheme. Registering a disputed domain name with the intent to pass off as a complainant and solicit personal information disrupts Complainant's business and evinces bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See UBS AG v. SMS Vice/Ubs, FA 1866179 (Forum Nov. 4, 2019) (finding bad faith where respondent registered and used the domain <ubscash.com> to disrupt the complainant's business and commercially benefit from the disputed domain name by attempting to impersonate complainant in order to conduct a fraudulent phishing scheme for commercial gain). Accordingly, the Panel finds bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).

 

Since Respondent registered the <guessjobs.us> domain name to pose as Complainant and scam job seekers, the Panel finds that Respondent registered the domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the GUESS? mark, and finds further bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Spectrum Brands, Inc. v. Guo Li Bo, FA 1760233 (Forum January 5, 2018) ("[T]he fact Respondent registered a domain name that looked identical to the SPECTRUM BRANDS mark and used that as an email address to pass itself off as Complainant shows that Respondent knew of Complainant and its trademark rights at the time of registration.")  

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

DECISION

Having established all three elements required under the usTLD Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <guessjobs.us> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Sandra J. Franklin Panelist

Dated: November 17, 2023