WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Booz Allen Hamilton Inc. v. Ramon Rojas
Case No. D2007-0804
1. The Parties
Complainant is Booz Allen Hamilton Inc., United States of America.
Respondent is Ramon Rojas, United States of America.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with GoD, Inc. (the “Registrar”).
3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 1, 2007. On June 5, 2007, the Center transmitted by e-mail to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On June 5, 2007, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the registrant contact details. On June 7, 2007, Complainant amended the Complaint to acknowledge that, in the event the Panel’s decision was challenged by Respondent, Complainant would submit to the jurisdiction of the federal courts in the principal office of the Registrar.
On June 8, 2007, the Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules) and, in accordance with the Rules, Paragraphs 2(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified Respondent of the Complaint; accordingly, the proceedings commenced on June 8, 2007. On June 11, 2007, Complainant amended its Complaint for the second time to submit additional evidence. In accordance with the Rules, Paragraph 5(a), the due date for the Response was set for June 28, 2007. Respondent did not submit a response. Accordingly, on July 6, 2007, the Center notified the Respondent of its default.
On August 3, 2007, the Center appointed Steven M. Auvil as the sole panelist in this matter.
The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, Paragraph 7.
4. Factual Background
Complainant, a well-known consulting firm throughout the world, is the owner of the BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON mark. Complainant’s mark is protected as a service mark in many countries worldwide. Complainant provided copies of records for certain BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON trademark registrations worldwide. Complainant also refers to itself, is well-known as, and is also the owner of the BOOZ ALLEN mark, the shortened form of its full name. Complainant provided copies of records for certain BOOZ ALLEN trademark registrations. Complainant has been using the mark BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON since at least 1942. On September 27, 1999, Complainant registered the domain name.
The Disputed Domain Name, was first registered by Respondent with the Registrar on September 13, 2005. Complainant provided evidence that the Disputed Domain Name links to a website that contains an offer to sell the Disputed Domain Name for “ $73,550 or best offer.” Complainant also provided evidence that, after the filing of the Complaint, Respondent lowered his offer to $900, indicating that it would be “cheaper” for Complainant to pay him the money rather than litigate this dispute. As of the date of this decision, the Disputed Domain Name resolves to a one-page web site that contains the following: “THIS DOMAIN IS FOR SALE – Special Price of $1,630 good through 07/31/07 – e-mail: RamonRojas@[e-mail address].”
5. Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
In its Complaint, Complainant contends that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to its BOOZ ALLEN mark.
In addition, Complainant contends that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name, that Respondent was not authorized by Complainant to use the BOOZ ALLEN mark, and that Respondent is a typosquatter who is using the BOOZ ALLEN mark hoping to attract visitors who inadvertently omit the period between “www” and “boozallen.”
Finally, Complainant contends that Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith because, in addition to attempting to attract visitors who inadvertently omit the period between “www” and “boozallen,” Respondent has offered to sell the Disputed Domain Name for a price far in excess of his out-of-pocket costs.
Complainant is seeking transfer of the Disputed Domain Name to Complainant.
B. Respondent
Respondent did not respond to Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
The Panel’s jurisdiction is limited to a determination whether Complainant has proved the necessary elements of a claim for transfer or cancellation of a domain name under the Policy and the Rules. Policy, Paragraph 4(a). The discussion and decision will be governed by the terms of the Policy.
To obtain relief, Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires Complainant to prove each of the following:
(1) that the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
(2) that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the domain name registered by Respondent; and
(3) that the domain name registered by Respondent has been registered and used in bad faith.
In view of Respondent’s failure to submit a Response, the Panel will decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant’s undisputed allegations for which there is support, pursuant to Paragraphs 5(e), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules, and draw such inferences it considers appropriate, pursuant to Paragraph 14(b) of the Rules.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name registered by Respondent is confusingly similar to Complainant’s distinctive and widely-known BOOZALLEN mark.
This Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is substantially identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s BOOZ ALLEN word mark because it fully incorporates that mark. See PepsiCo, Inc. v. PEPSI, SRL (a/k/a P.E.P.S.I.) and EMS Computer Industry (a/k/a EMS), WIPO Case No. D2003-0696 (“incorporating a trademark in its entirety can be sufficient to establish that a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a registered trademark”). Moreover, the addition of the generic “www” prefix does not obviate the confusing similarity between the Disputed Domain Name and Complainant’s BOOZ ALLEN mark. See, e.g., Deutsche Telekom AG v. Jurgen Miller, WIPO Case No. D2005-1340 (“[T]he Panel finds that the prefix ‘www’ is not to be considered a factor of differentiation as it has no distinguishing capacity when included in a domain name.”); Aventis v. Woofer Smith, WIPO Case No. D2003-0338 (“The Respondent has only added ‘www’ before the trademark. The inclusion in the domain name of the prefix ‘www’ does nothing to distinguish it from the trademark.”) See also America Online, Inc. v. Chris Hoffman, WIPO Case No. D2001-1184 (use of short phrases with widely-known mark still found confusingly similar to that mark).
For these reasons, the Panel concludes that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the BOOZ ALLEN mark, a widely-known trademark in which Complainant has rights.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Under the Policy, legitimate interests in a domain name may be demonstrated by showing that: (i) before any notice of this dispute, Respondent used, or demonstrably prepared to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; (ii) Respondent has been commonly known by the domain name, even if no trademark or service mark rights have been acquired; 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 at issue. Policy, Paragraph 4(c).
Complainant contends that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. Respondent has not submitted any arguments or evidence in rebuttal.
Nothing in the record suggests that Respondent is commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name or that, before any notice of this dispute, Respondent used, or demonstrably prepared to use, the Disputed Domain Name or a name corresponding to the Disputed Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. There is, moreover, no evidence that Respondent is making a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert customers or to tarnish the BOOZ ALLEN mark. Indeed, Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name many years after Complainant established rights in its BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON and BOOZ ALLEN marks through extensive use, and almost six years after Complainant registered its domain name. In short, there is no evidence from which the Panel could conclude that Respondent has rights to or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. Compare Justerini & Brooks Limited v. Juan Colmenar Rueda as Registrant “Colmenar”, aka “jokolm” / “JCRco.”, WIPO Case No. D2000-1397 (finding that, given the notoriety and distinctiveness of the JUSTERINI & BROOKS trademark, it was not one which another trader would legitimately choose unless the trader sought to create an impression of association with that complainant, create an impression of association with JUSTERINI & BROOKS products, attract business from that complainant, misleadingly divert members of the public, and/or damage the reputation and business of that complainant).
For these reasons, in accordance with Paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Rules, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name.
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Complainant also argues that Respondent registered and used the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith. Specifically, Complainant argues that Respondent’s bad faith is reflected in the fact that: (1) Respondent is engaged in “typosquatting,” apparently hoping that those seeking to visit Complainant’s “www.” web site will omit the period and visit Respondent’s “www.w” web site instead; and (2) Respondent has solicited offers to buy the Disputed Domain Name registration for “$73,550 or best offer.”
The Panel agrees. The unrebutted evidence in this case does demonstrate that Respondent has used and/or is using Complainant’s widely-known BOOZ ALLEN mark in the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith. Respondent’s typosquatting alone constitutes evidence of registration and use in bad faith. See ESPN, Inc. v. XC2, WIPO Case No. D2005-0444 (“It is well-settled that the practice of typosquatting, of itself, is evidence of the bad faith registration of a domain name.”); General Electric Co. v. Cvieli, WIPO Case No. D2000-0377 (“[T]he practice of ‘typosquatting’ constitutes registration and use in bad faith.”); National Association of Professional Baseball Leagues, Inc. v. John Zuccarini, WIPO Case No. D2002-1011 (“Typosquatting is inherently parasitic and of itself evidence of bad faith.”) Additional evidence that the Disputed Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith can be found in Respondent’s repeated efforts to sell the Disputed Domain Name registration for prices obviously higher than the cost of its registration (“$73,550 or best offer” and “Special Price of $1,630 good through 07/31/07”). Further, the unrebutted evidence in this case demonstrates that, after being notified of the Complaint, Respondent contacted Complainant to solicit a monetary payment indicating that it would be “cheaper” for Complainant to pay him $900 than to litigate this dispute; Respondent also offered that he engages in this sort of conduct “all the time.” Finally, as of the date of this decision, the Disputed Domain Name links to a one-page web site that contains the following: “THIS DOMAIN IS FOR SALE – Special Price of $1,630 good through 07/31/07 – e-mail: RamonRojas@[e-mail address].” See Ferrari S.p.A. v. Allen Ginsberg, WIPO Case No. D2002-0033 (finding that the respondent’s “standing offer to sell the domain name to any third party offering a price that is high enough must also be qualified as amounting to use of the domain name in bad faith.”); Singapore Telecommunications Ltd. V. Domain for Sale, WIPO Case No. D2001-1059 (finding that the respondent’s requirement of a bid exceeding $550 created an inference of bad faith as it sought “consideration which will be more than the respondent’s documented out-of-pocket costs.”)
For these reasons, the Panel concludes that the bad faith element of the Policy is satisfied.
7. Decision
For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with Paragraph 4(i) of the Policy and Paragraph 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the domain name be transferred to Complainant.
Steven Auvil
Sole Panelist
Dated: August 24, 2007
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy