The Complainant is Hobbs Brook Management LLC, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Markery Law LLC, United States.
The Respondent is Registration Private, Domains by Proxy, LLC, United States / Timothy I Meade, Hobbs inc, 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 29, 2020. On June 30, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On July 1, 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 the Complainant on July 6, 2020 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on July 10, 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 the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on July 13, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 2, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on August 28, 2020. The Center appointed Evan D. Brown as the sole panelist in this matter on September 2, 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 The Complainant is in the business of providing various types of services relating to commercial real estate. It owns the trademark HOBBS BROOK MANAGEMENT LLC (and Design), which is the subject of United States Registration No. 3,762,583, issued on March 23, 2010. The disputed domain name was registered on June 25, 2020. As of the time of the filing of the Complaint, the disputed domain name resolved to a parked web page showing paid sponsored advertisements. The Complainant also asserts that the disputed domain name has been used to generate and send fraudulent email communications, including communications to a vendor for the Complainant. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark; that the 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 The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings To succeed, the Complainant must demonstrate that all of the elements listed 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 the Complainant has rights; (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and (iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar A registered trademark provides a clear indication that the rights in the mark shown on the trademark certificate belong to its respective owner. See, Advance Magazine Publishers Inc., Les Publications Conde Nast S.A. v. Voguechen,WIPO Case No. D2014-0657. The Complainant has demonstrated its rights in the HOBBS BROOK MANAGEMENT LLC (and Design) mark by providing evidence of its trademark registration in the United States. The disputed domain name, being comprised of the dominant portion of the Complainant’s mark (plus the letter “s” added to the word “Brook”), is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark for purposes of the Policy. The Complainant has established this first element. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Panel evaluates this element of the Policy by first looking to see whether the Complainant has made a prima facie showing that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. If the Complainant makes that showing, the burden of production to demonstrate rights or legitimate interests shifts to the Respondent. The Complainant has established, prima facie, that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. On this point, the Complainant asserts, among other things, that: - Respondent has no rights to any trademark consisting of the term ‘Hobbs Brooks’ in any country. - Respondent is not known by the trademark HOBBS BROOKS. According to the information provided by the Registrar, the registrant listed an organization in Michigan, United States that uses the name Hobbs, Inc. However, the Complainant asserts (and the Respondent does not dispute) that there is no company legally registered in Michigan, United States using that name. - The Complainant has never licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use its trademark. - The Respondent is not using the disputed domain name for any bona fide business purpose, or in a noncommercial “fair use” manner. As evidenced in the Complaint, the disputed domain name has been used in connection with a fraudulent email scheme, and at the time of filing the Complaint resolved to a parked page that provided unrelated sponsored links. - Accordingly, the Complainant asserts that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name to trade off the goodwill established by the Complainant with the intent to divert Complainant’s consumers to the Respondent’s website as well as disrupt Complainant’s business for its own commercial gain. These facts make the Complainant’s prima facie showing. The Respondent has not provided any evidence that rebuts this prima facie showing. The Panel finds that the Complainant has established this second element under the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Policy requires a complainant to establish that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Policy describes several non-exhaustive circumstances demonstrating a respondent’s bad faith registration and use. Under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, a panel may find bad faith when a respondent “[uses] the domain name to intentionally attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [respondent’s] website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [respondent’s] website or location or a product or service on [the respondent’s] website or location”. The Panel finds, particularly based on the use of the disputed domain name to communicate with a vendor for the Complainant, that the Respondent knew about and indeed targeted the Complainant when it registered the disputed domain name. Such a showing is sufficient to establish bad faith registration of the disputed domain name. Bad faith use is clear from the Respondent’s activities of using the disputed domain name to send fraudulent email communications impersonating the Complainant. The Complainant has successfully established the third UDRP element. 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 Evan D. Brown
Sole Panelist
Date: September 16, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy