The Complainant is Booz Allen Hamilton Inc. of Virginia, United States of America, represented by Pattishall, McAuliffe, Newbury, Hilliard & Geraldson, United States of America.
The Respondent is Contact Privacy Inc. Customer No. 134008322 of Toronto, Canada / ICS Private Whois of Grand Cayman, Cayman Islands, Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Tucows Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 16, 2013. On July 17, 2013, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On July 17, 2013, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on July 19, 2013 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on July 20, 2013.
The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), 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”).
In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on July 22, 2013. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was August 11, 2013. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on August 12, 2013.
The Center appointed Michael J. Spence as the sole panelist in this matter on August 21, 2013. 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
The Complainant Booz Allen is a strategy and technology consulting firm with a global reach and more than 23,000 employees. It has, since at least 1942, been using both the trademarks BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON and BOOZ ALLEN in relation to its business. The trademarks are well known throughout the world.
The disputed domain name was created on October 2, 2012. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical to confusingly similar to its trademarks; that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and that it has been registered and is being used in bad faith. The Respondent does not appear actively to have used the disputed domain name, but has offered it for sale through a website known as “BUYDOMAINS” for $4,999. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name contains the Complainant’s trade mark BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON in its entirety. The addition of the generic term salary does little to distinguish the disputed domain name from the Complainant's trade mark.
The Panel therefore finds that the Complainant has established the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy in relation to the disputed domain name. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
It is for the Complainant to establish, at least prima facie, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name (Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd.,WIPO Case No. D2003-0455, Belupo d.d. v. WACHEM d.o.o.,WIPO Case No. D2004-0110).
In this case, the disputed domain name does not appear actively to have been used by the Respondent; the Respondent has not at any point been known by a name reflecting the disputed domain name; and the Complainant has not at any time licensed the use of its trade mark to the Respondent. In light of these considerations, and the considerable strength of the Complainant's goodwill in its trade mark, it is inconceivable that the Respondent could have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
The Panel therefore finds that the Complainant has established the second element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy in relation to the disputed domain name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Given the strength of the Complainant’s reputation in its trade mark, and therefore the strong likelihood of confusion, and given that the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant’s trade mark at the time of registration, it is probable that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in order to profit from the reputation of the Complainant’s trade mark. That conclusion is reinforced by the Respondent's actions in offering to sell the disputed domain name for a value, which appears to be considerably greater than the cost of its registration. This is a classic case of registration and use in bad faith.
The Panel therefore finds that the Complainant has established the third element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy in relation to the disputed domain name. 7. Decision
For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant.
Michael J. Spence
Sole Panelist
Date: September 4, 2013
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy