Complainant is Citrix Systems, Inc., United States of America (“United States” or “U.S.”), represented by Day Pitney LLP, United States.
Respondent is Regina Akens, United States. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 7, 2020. On February 10, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On the same day, 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 February 12, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 3, 2020. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on March 4, 2020. The Center appointed Nels T. Lippert as the sole panelist in this matter on March 16, 2020. 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 provider of computer software systems and related system services in the nature of networking and server software, desktop virtualization systems, software-as-a-service, cloud computing technologies and mobility solutions. Complainant’s CITRIX trademark has been registered in many countries worldwide, including the United States and European Union. Examples of Complainant’s U.S. registrations of the CITRIX mark are U.S. trademark registrations No. 5803584, registered on July 16, 2019, and covering goods and services in classes 9, 35, 37, 37, 38, 41, 42, 45, and No. 2614647, registered on September 3, 2002, and covering services in classes 37 and 42, and a full list is provided in Annex 6 to the Complaint. Respondent registered the disputed domain name on January 11, 2020. One of the uses of the disputed domain name is to resolve to a website and a related email address that invites individuals to apply for employment and to submit personal and banking information. At least one consumer reported this fraud to Complainant. Complaint, Annex 4 and 5. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name is either identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s CITRIX trademark. Complainant contends that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the use of the CITRIX mark or the disputed domain name. Complainant alleges that Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. More specifically, Complainant alleges that Respondent uses the disputed domain name as a phishing scheme to fraudulently obtain personal identifying information and bank account information from unsuspecting consumers. B. Respondent Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A Panel should decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy and Rules, and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable. Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy directs that Complainant must establish each of the following: (i) that the domain name registered to the respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and (ii) that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and (iii) that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar In this case the disputed domain name incorporates Complainant’s CITRIX trademark in its entirety plus the descriptive term “system”. As noted in section 1.8 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), where the relevant trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain name, the addition of other descriptive terms would not prevent a finding of a confusing similarity under the first element. Here, the addition of the descriptive term “system” (which also is part of Complainant’s corporate name) does not operate to prevent a finding of confusing similarity as the trademark, CITRIX, is reproduced in the disputed domain name. The Panel finds the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant asserts that Respondent has no bona fide rights in the disputed domain name because it does not own any trademark or service mark registrations encompassing the disputed domain name, or any variations thereof; is not commonly known by the disputed domain name; and it is not making a legitimate, noncommercial, or fair use of the disputed domain name without intent for commercial gain. Respondent has not disputed these assertions. In circumstances such as this, where Respondent has failed to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, Complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1. The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith In this case Complainant has submitted compelling evidence that the disputed domain name is registered and used in bad faith. Specifically, Complainant has established that Respondent registered and was using, at the time of the Complaint, the disputed domain name to engage in an illegal phishing scheme to attract and obtain payments and personal information from job applicants. The disputed domain name was registered by Respondent many years after Claimant’s CITRIX mark was registered in the United States and elsewhere. And because Respondent has used the disputed domain name in furtherance of a phishing scheme it illustrates that Respondent knew of Complainant at the time of registration and had a bad faith intent to use the disputed domain name for purposes of soliciting fraudulent payments. Konecranes, Inc. v. James White, WIPO Case No. D2018-0861. As noted in WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1.4, because use of a domain name for per se illegitimate activity such as phishing can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent, such behavior is manifestly considered evidence of bad faith. Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. 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 Nels T. Lippert
Sole Panelist
Date: March 30, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy