Complainant is International Business Machines Corporation, United States of America, represented internally.
Respondents are Luna Morgan, Machotech/Luna Morgan, United States of America, and Paramed Healthcare/Elie Dadoud, Canada. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain names The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 10, 2020. On March 10, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On March 10, 2020, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain names which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to Complainant on March 12, 2020 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amended Complaint on March 16, 2020. 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 and 4, the Center formally notified Respondents of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on April 3, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 23, 2020. Respondents did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondents’ default on May 4, 2020. The Center appointed Lorelei Ritchie as the sole panelist in this matter on May 6, 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 multinational company, based in the United States. Complainant has registered trademarks around the world for its IBM trademark, which Complainant has used since 1924, in various areas of technology. These registrations include, among others, United States Registration No. 640606 (registered January 29, 1957); United States Registration No. 1058803 (registered February 15 1977); United States Registration No. 1694814 (registered June 16, 1992); and United States Registration No. 4181289 (registered July 31, 2012). Complainant is widely recognized as one of the top technology companies in the world. For example, in 2019, Complainant was ranked 12th best global brand by Interbrand, and 38th largest company on the Fortune U.S. 500 company. The disputed domain names were registered between June 22, 2019, and January 14, 2020. Respondents have no affiliation with Complainant. Respondents have used emails associated with the disputed domain names to engage in fraudulent behavior whereby Respondents pose as official representatives of Complainant, and invite prospective job applicants to provide personal and financial information in order to pursue employment opportunities with Complainant. Complainant has not authorized any activities by Respondents, nor any use of its trademarks thereby. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Complainant contends that (i) the disputed domain names In particular, Complainant contends that its IBM mark is “world famous.” Complainant references the numerous global rankings of its mark, and notes that it spends over 1 billion USD annually on global marketing. Complainant contends that Respondents have merely used the disputed domain names to set up email accounts meant to lure in candidates looking for highly-sought-after jobs with Complainant in a “phishing” scheme to obtain personal and financial information from the job applicants. Complainant further contends that Respondents have no rights or legitimate interest in the domain name registrations or use of the disputed domain names. Rather, Complainant contends that Respondents have acted in bad faith in sending out emails, when Respondents were clearly aware of Complainant’s rights in the IBM mark. B. Respondents Respondents did not file a reply to Complainant’s contentions in this proceeding. 6. Discussion and Findings As a preliminary matter, the Panel notes that there are three named Respondents in this case, two of which include reference to the same registrant. Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules explains that a complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that they are registered by the same domain name holder. Situations may occasionally arise in which multiple respondents may be considered as one domain name holder for the purpose of this provision. Such a situation arises here. In this case, all of the disputed domain names have been used in a similar manner to send emails to prospective job applicants for Complainant, and using Complainant’s IBM mark. Furthermore, each of the disputed domain names provides the same email address and phone number for contact information. The Panel is satisfied that, under these circumstances, all of the captioned entities are properly included as Respondents in this case. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar This Panel must determine whether the disputed domain names Numerous UDRP panels have agreed that supplementing or modifying a trademark with generic or descriptive words, including geographically descriptors, 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, General Electric Company v. Recruiters,WIPO Case No. D2007-0584 (transferring The Panel therefore finds that each of the disputed domain names 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 Policy provides some guidance to respondents on how to demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in the domain name at issue in a UDRP dispute. For example, 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”. Respondents did not submit a reply to the Complaint, however. Rather, as mentioned in Section 4 of this Panel’s decision, Respondents have used emails associated with the disputed domain names to engage in fraudulent behavior whereby Respondents pose as official representatives of Complainant, and invite prospective job applicants to provide personal and financial information in order to pursue employment opportunities with Complainant. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has made a prima facie showing of Respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name, which Respondent has not rebutted. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith There are several ways that a complainant can demonstrate that a domain name was 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 on-line 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, Respondents have used emails associated with the disputed domain names to engage in fraudulent behavior whereby Respondents pose as official representatives of Complainant, and invite prospective job applicants to provide personal and financial information in order to pursue employment opportunities with Complainant. Hence, Respondents are trading on the goodwill of Complainant’s trademarks to attract Internet users, presumably for Respondents’ own commercial gain. Given the nature of the use, and the disputed domain names, which incorporates Complainant’s globally recognized IBM mark, the Panel finds strong evidence that Respondents registered and used the disputed domain names with knowledge of Complainant’s prior rights, thereby evidencing bad faith. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondents registered and used the disputed domain names in bad faith in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. 7. Decision For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain names Lorelei Ritchie
Sole Panelist
Dated: May 14, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy