Complainant is Coventor, Inc., United States of America (“United States”), represented by Duy Thai, United States.
Respondent is Domains By Proxy, LLC, United States / Name Redacted1. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 29, 2020. On May 29, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On June 1, 2020, 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 June 11, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 1, 2020. On June 24, 2020, the named Respondent contacted the Center indicating it has no knowledge of or involvement with the disputed domain name. On July 7, 2020, the Center send an email communication to the Parties indicating it would proceed to appoint the Administrative Panel. The Center appointed Lynda J. Zadra-Symes as the sole panelist in this matter on August 3, 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 the owner of the mark COVENTOR used in connection with computer software for designing and manufacturing semiconductors and micro-electro-mechanical systems. Complainant has used this mark in the United States and other countries for more than 17 years. Complainant owns the following United States Trademark Registrations: COVENTOR Registration No. 2,823,700 registered March 16, 2004 Complainant also owns and operates the domain name The disputed domain name was registered on December 29, 2019. Respondent uses the disputed domain name in connection with email addresses to facilitate fraudulent recruiting scams. The disputed domain name is being used to impersonate Complainant in fake job announcements on the Indeed website. The record indicates that several people have been deceived into submitting job applications to the fake email address using the disputed domain name, and several people have been deceived into purchasing items as a pre-condition for their employment. The email addresses used in association with the fraudulent job postings were […]acquisition@coventorinc.com, […].hr.coventor@gmail.com, and […].coventorinc@gmail.com. The emails also use Complainant’s name in the email signature line. Complainant sent a cease and desist letter to Respondent on January 28, 2020. Respondent failed to respond. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark, that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name and that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. B. Respondent Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings In order to succeed in its claim, Complainant must demonstrate that all of the elements enumerated in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy have been satisfied: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and (ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the disputed domain name; and (iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs the Panel to decide a complaint “on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable”. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar Complainant has demonstrated that it has rights in the trademark COVENTOR. The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant’s mark in its entirety. The addition of the term “inc”, a term used as an abbreviation for “incorporated”, and which reflects Complainant’s full business name, does not prevent a finding of confusing similiairy. See section 1.8 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”). Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant contends that Respondent is not affiliated with or connected to Complainant in any way. At no time has Complainant licensed or otherwise endorsed, sponsored or authorized Respondent to use Complainant’s mark. The record is devoid of any facts that establish any rights or legitimate interests of Respondent in the disputed domain name. There is no evidence that Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name or that it has any rights that might predate Complainant’s adoption and use of the COVENTOR mark. Complainant’s first use of the COVENTOR mark dates back to as early as 2001, almost two decades ago and well before the registration of the disputed domain name on December 29, 2019. Respondent has not made, and is not making, a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. Respondent has not used the disputed domain name in connection with the bona fide offering of goods or services. There is no functioning website at the disputed domain name. Respondent is using the disputed domain name in connection with a fraudulent recruiting scam posing as Complainant in job postings on the Indeed website. In addition, the user of the deceptive email address incorporating the disputed domain name also used Complainant’s other marks and made reference to Complainant’s corporate affiliate. The record therefore indicates that Respondent was well aware of Complainant’s COVENTOR mark and knowingly adopted Complainant’s mark in the disputed domain name in an effort to create the false impression that Respondent is associated with Complainant’s to defraud people into providing their personal or financial information, or providing payment, to Respondent for Respondent’s personal profit and gain. The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Complainant has submitted evidence that the disputed domain name is being used in connection with a fraudulent scam designed to lure consumers into believing that they are applying for legitimate job openings at Complainant’s business. Respondent is using the disputed domain name in email addresses to lure unsuspecting job applicants into providing personal information. The emails associated with the fraudulent email addresses also use Complainant’s business name in the email signature line. Complainant has no affiliation with the fraudulent email addresses and did not make the job postings. The record indicates that Respondent is engaging in opportunistic bad faith in violation of the Policy. Respondent obviously knew of Complainant’s mark and is using the disputed domain name in connection with a fraudulent phishing scam aimed at acquiring Internet users’ personal information. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name 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 Lynda J. Zadra-Symes 1 Respondent appears to have used the name and contact details of a third party when registering the disputed domain name. In light of the potential identity theft, the Panel has redacted Respondent’s name from this decision. However, the Panel has attached as Annex 1 to this decision an instruction to the Registrar regarding transfer of the disputed domain name, which includes the name of Respondent. The Panel has authorized the Center to transmit Annex 1 to the Registrar as part of the order in this proceeding, and has indicated Annex 1 to this decision shall not be published due to the exceptional circumstances of this case. See Banco Bradesco S.A. v. FAST-12785241 Attn. Bradescourgente.net / Name Redacted,WIPO Case No. D2009-1788.
COVENTOR Registration No. 5,673,329 registered February 12, 2019
Sole Panelist
Date: August 17, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy