DECISION

 

Guidehouse LLP v. Darin Suresh

Claim Number: FA2411002124427

PARTIES

Complainant is Guidehouse LLP ("Complainant"), represented by Bruce A. McDonald of SMITH, GAMBRELL & RUSSELL, LLP, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is Darin Suresh ("Respondent"), India.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <guidehouse.info>, registered with GoDaddy.com, 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.

 

Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on November 11, 2024; Forum received payment on November 11, 2024.

 

On November 13, 2024, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <guidehouse.info> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, 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 November 13, 2024, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of December 3, 2024 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@guidehouse.info. Also on November 13, 2024, 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 formal response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

 

On December 4, 2024, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Paul M. DeCicco 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.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

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

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant contends in part as follows:

 

Complainant, a Delaware limited liability partnership, is a leading global provider of consulting services to businesses and government entities, and the successor to PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP's public sector business which was acquired in 2018 by Veritas.

 

Complainant attempted to acquire the <guidehouse.info> domain name from Respondent and was quoted a substantial fee. Complainant alleges that Respondent is effectively conducting business, namely the monetization of domain names that incorporate and imitate well-known names and trademarks from a concealed location.

 

Respondent's at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's GUIDEHOUSE trademark. Complainant's rights in the GUIDEHOUSE mark are strong based on continuous, extensive, and exclusive use since 2018. Complainant owns a family of federal service mark registrations covering the name GUIDEHOUSE and the domain name is materially identical to Complainant's name and mark.

 

Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the at-issue domain name. Respondent is not using the at-issue domain name for any good or service except to monetize a confusingly similar domain name. Respondent is not known by the domain name; and Respondent is making no legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the name. Instead, there is currently no website at <guidehouse.info>.  However, Complainant has been contacted by consumers who were defrauded by fictitious entities and anonymous persons using email addresses incorporating and imitating Complainant's GUIDEHOUSE trademark, raising a reasonable inference that the disputed domain name was registered for this purpose.

 

Typo-squatting and combo-squatting are evidence of bad faith. Combo-squatting on a well-known trademark indicates that a respondent had knowledge of the complainant and its rights. Respondent has registered Complainant's entire mark, GUIDEHOUSE, followed by the top-level generic domain ".info," making consumers especially vulnerable to scams by imposters posing as representatives of Complainant's company. Finally, Respondent is conducting business anonymously from a concealed location which violates the trade name registration statutes of every state in the U.S.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a formal Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant has trademark rights in the GUIDEHOUSE mark.

 

Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and had not been authorized to use Complainant's trademark in any capacity.

 

Respondent registered the at‑issue domain name after Complainant acquired rights in the GUIDEHOUSE trademark.

 

Respondent holds the at-issue domain name passively. 

 

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 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").

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

The at-issue domain is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.

 

Any of Complainant's USPTO registrations concerning the GUIDEHOUSE mark is conclusive evidence of Complainant's rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Home Depot Product Authority, LLC v. Samy Yosef / Express Transporting, FA 1738124 (Forum July 28, 2017) (finding that registration with the USPTO was sufficient to establish the complainant's rights in the HOME DEPOT mark).

 

The at-issue domain name consists of Complainant's GUIDEHOUSE trademark followed by the top level domain name ".info." The differences between <guidehouse.info> and Complainant's GUIDEHOUSE trademark are insufficient to distinguish the domain name from Complainant's trademark for the purposes of the Policy. Therefore, the Panel finds pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) that Respondent's <guidehouse.info> domain name is confusingly similar or identical to Complainant's GUIDEHOUSE trademark. See Lorillard Technologies, Inc. v Elite Domains, FA 1499685 (Forum June 14, 2013) (holding, in reference to respondent's <blu-cigs.info> domain name, that "Respondent's addition of a gTLD does not negate identity or confusing similarity pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)").

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

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. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm't Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006). Since Respondent failed to respond, absent evidence of Policy ¶ 4(c) circumstances Complainant's prima facie showing acts conclusively.

 

Respondent lacks both rights and legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant's trademark in any capacity and, as discussed below, there are no Policy ¶ 4(c) circumstances from which the Panel might find that Respondent has rights or interests in respect of the at-issue domain name.

 

The WHOIS information for <guidehouse.info> reveals that "Darin Suresh" is the domain name's registrant and there is nothing in the record that suggests that Respondent is otherwise known by the <guidehouse.info> domain name. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Coppertown Drive-Thru Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089 (Forum July 17, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <coppertown.com> domain name where there was no evidence in the record, including the WHOIS information, suggesting that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name).

 

Respondent holds its <guidehouse.info> domain name passively notwithstanding that the domain name may in the future be used in various phishing schemes relying on confusing third parties concerning the domain name's sponsorship or otherwise. Notably, the domain name's failure to host content does not indicate that Respondent's used <guidehouse.info> in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or has made a non-commercial or fair use of the domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See CrossFirst Bankshares, Inc. v Yu-Hsien Huang, FA 1785415 (Forum June 6, 2018)("Complainant demonstrates that Respondent fails to actively use the disputed domain name as it resolves to an inactive website. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent fails to actively use the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).")

 

Given the forgoing, Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of <guidehouse.info>.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

As discussed below without being exhaustive, there is evidence from which the Panel concludes that Respondent acted in bad faith pursuant to the Policy.

 

First, Respondent's <guidehouse.info> domain name is inactive. The record fails to indicate a current use for the domain name and Complainant asserts that it is not currently addressing a website. Complainant speculates regarding the domain name's future malevolent use by Respondent. Nevertheless, Respondent's passive holding of the confusingly similar/identical <guidehouse.info> domain name demonstrates Respondent's bad faith registration and use of such domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See CommScope, Inc. of North Carolina v. Zhuang Yan / WANGYONG, FA 1764026 (Forum Feb. 14, 2018)("Respondent's domain names do not have resolving websites. Using a domain name to resolve to an inactive website (or no website at all) indicates bad faith registration and use.") The circumstances regarding any attempt by Respondent to sell the domain name to Complainant is not clear and thus the Panel cannot find that the primary purpose of registration was to sell the domain name for an amount greater than Respondent's out of pocket costs per Policy ¶ 4(b)(i).

 

Moreover, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in GUIDEHOUSE when it registered <guidehouse.info> as a domain name. Respondent's prior knowledge of Complainant's mark is evident from the notoriety of Complainant's GUIDEHOUSE trademark and the lack of a benign conceivable reasonable explanation justifying Respondent's registration of the <guidehouse.info> domain name. Respondent's registration and passive holding of the confusingly similar/identical <guidehouse.info> domain name with knowledge of Complainant's trademark rights in GUIDEHOUSE further shows Respondent's bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Lemon Inc. v. Sumer Singh, FA 2110519 (Forum September 5, 2024 ("registration of a disputed domain name with actual knowledge of another's trademark rights is sufficient to establish bad faith, and can be shown by the notoriety of the mark and the use the Respondent makes of the disputed domain name"); see also, Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name).

 

DECISION

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

 

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

 

 

 

 

Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist

Dated: December 4, 2024