Complainant is Elliott Management Corporation, United States of America (“United States”), represented by ZwillGen PLLC, United States.
Respondent is Blake Smoove, 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 June 2, 2020. On June 3, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On June 3, 2020, 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 Complainant on June 5, 2020, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amended Complaint on June 9, 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on June 16, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 6, 2020. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on July 7, 2020. The Center appointed Lynda J. Zadra-Symes as the sole panelist in this matter on July 24, 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 global investment management firm incorporated in the Delaware, United States, with offices in the United States, United Kingdom, China and Japan. Complainant uses the trademark ELLIOTT in connection with its investment management services. Complainant is the owner of United States Trademark Registration No. 3250277, registered June 12, 2007, for the mark ELLIOTT for use in connection with “investment management; financial services in the nature of investment advisory”. Complainant is also the owner of the domain name The disputed domain name was registered on May 20, 2020. The disputed domain name does not resolve to an active website. However, the Complainant has provided evidence of the disputed domain name is being used in connection with a fraudulent email scam. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is 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 was 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 their 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 Complainants have 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 ELLIOTT in connection with investment management and related financial services and advice. The disputed domain name consists of Complainant’s ELLIOTT mark with a minor typographical deletion of one letter, the letter “i”. This misspelling does not avoid a finding of confusing similarity. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant submitted evidence showing that, as of May 26, 2020, individuals using an email address from the disputed domain (“[...]@ellottmgmt.com”) are actively impersonating Complainant’s Human Resource Department in an attempt to launch phishing attacks against customers and prospective job seekers. As the email indicates, the disputed domain is being used to advertise fraudulent job postings and lure recipients to click on links to download software, likely containing malware. This is not a bona fide use of the disputed domain name. The record indicates that Respondent is using the disputed domain name to mislead Internet users into providing personal information and to defraud them. Respondent has not made, and is not making, a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name is not associated with an active website, but is being used in connection with a fraudulent scam to obtain personal information from Internet users, and to defraud them into providing their financial or personal information 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 a reasonable basis to believe that the disputed domain name is being used in connection with a fraudulent scam designed to lure consumers into believing that they are responding to Complainant. The record supports Complainant’s reasonable belief. The record indicates that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the ELLIOTT trademark prior to registering the disputed domain name and that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in connection with a fraudulent scam for commercial gain by intentionally creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent has registered and is using 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
Sole Panelist
Date: August 6, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy