Complainant is Jones Lang LaSalle IP, Inc. of Chicago, Illinois, United States of America (“United States” or “U.S.”), represented by CSC Digital Brand Services AB, Sweden.
Respondent is Darryl Gomez of Englewood, Colorado, United States. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainR (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 16, 2018. On May 16, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On May 17, 2018, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details.
The Center verified that the 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 and 4, the Center formally notified Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on May 29, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was June 18, 2018. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on June 19, 2018.
The Center appointed Lorelei Ritchie as the sole panelist in this matter on June 21, 2018. 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 is a multinational company with its headquarters in Chicago, Illinois, in the United States. Complainant is an industry leader in property and facility management services, with over 82,000 employees and clients in over 80 countries, and 2017 revenues of USD 7.9 billion. Complainant has operated its services since 1999, and has used the mark JLL since 2014.
Complainant owns various trademark registrations for the mark JLL globally, including, in the United States where Respondent lists his address of record, U.S. Registration No. 4,564,654 (Registered 2014), as well as European Union Registration No. 010603447 (Registered 2012); and Canadian Registration No. TMA 875711 (Registered 2014).
Complainant also owns the registration for numerous domain names incorporating its JLL mark, including (registered 1998), which it uses to connect to a URL from which it refers users to information about its services. Complainant is also the administrator for the Top-Level Domain for “.jll” (registered 2015). As a Fortune 500 company, Complainant is frequently featured in the media, and has received numerous awards, including Fortune Magazine’s World’s Most Admired Company (2016-2017); America’s Best Employer (2016); and World’s Most Ethical Companies (2008-2017).
The disputed domain name was registered on September 26, 2017. Respondent did not have an active web page associated with the disputed domain name at the time the Complaint was filed. Respondent has no affiliation with Complainant, nor any license to use its marks. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
Complainant contends that (i) is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademarks; (ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and (iii) Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
Specifically, Complainant contends that it is the owner of the mark JLL which is “well recognized and respected worldwide,” especially in the United States, where Respondent lists his address of record. Complainant contends further that Respondent has incorporated the JLL mark in the disputed domain name and merely added the geographically descriptive term “US,” which is indicative of the United States territory. Complainant contends that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name, and rather has registered and is using it in bad faith, as part of a pattern of registering well-known marks. B. Respondent
Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
This Panel must first determine whether is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. The Panel finds that it is. The disputed domain name incorporates in full Complainant’s registered mark, JLL, and combines it with the geographically descriptive term “US,” which is descriptive of the United States territory, where Complainant is headquartered, and where Respondent lists his address of record.
Numerous UDRP panels have agreed that supplementing or modifying a trademark with generic or descriptive words does not make a domain name any less “identical or confusingly similar” for purposes of satisfying this first prong of paragraph (4)(a)(i) of the Policy. See, for example, Microsoft Corporation v. StepWeb,WIPO Case No. D2000-1500 (transferring ); Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Horoshiy, Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2004-0620 (transferring ); General Electric Company v. Recruiters,WIPO Case No. D2007-0584 (transferring ).
The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights in accordance with paragraph (4)(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Panel next considers whether Complainant has shown that Respondent has no “rights or legitimate interest” as must be proven to succeed in a UDRP dispute. Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy gives examples that might show rights or legitimate interests in a domain name. These examples include: (i) use of the domain name “in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services”; (ii) demonstration that respondent has been “commonly known by the domain name”; or (iii) “legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue”.
No evidence has been presented to this Panel that might support a claim of Respondent’s rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and Respondent has no license from, or other affiliation with, Complainant.
Complainant has established a prima facie case of Respondent’s lack of “rights or legitimate interests” which Respondent has not rebutted. Therefore, this Panel finds Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
There are several ways that a complainant can demonstrate that domain names were registered and used in bad faith. For example, paragraph (4)(b)(iv) of the Policy states that bad faith can be shown where “by using the domain name [respondent has] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [respondent’s] web site or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [respondent’s] website or location or of a product or service on [the] web site or location”. As noted in Section 4 of this Panel’s decision, Respondent did not have an active website associated with the disputed domain name at the time the Complaint was filed.
Although passive domain name holding is not necessarily indicative of a lack of bad faith, Complainant also submitted evidence that Respondent has engaged in a pattern of registering similar domain names, thereby evidencing bad faith in accordance with paragraph 4(b)(ii), with other registrations including , , , and . Although different mailing addresses are listed for each of these domain names, the same name, that of Respondent, is listed as the contact for each, and, tellingly, they list the same email address, also that of Respondent.
Given the overall circumstances, and the degree of exposure of Complainant’s mark, the Panel finds it more likely than not that Respondent was aware of Complainant’s rights when registering and using the disputed domain name, and has further engaged in a pattern of registering domain names incorporating well-known marks. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith in accordance with paragraph (4)(a)(iii) of the Policy. 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 Complainant.
Lorelei Ritchie
Sole Panelist
Date: July 2, 2018
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy