WIPO Domain Name Decision D2020-2895 for salesf0rces.com, saleslf0rce.com

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION salesforce.com, inc. v. Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 1246889237, Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 1246889237 / Joe Fischer, Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 1245716727, Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 1245716727 / Marc Douglass Case No. D2020-2895 1. The Parties

The Complainant is salesforce.com, inc., United States of America (“United States”), represented by Winterfeldt IP Group PLLC, United States.

The Respondents are Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 1246889237, Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 1246889237, Canada / Joe Fischer, United States, and Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 1245716727, Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 1245716727, Canada / Marc Douglass, United States. 2. The Domain Names and Registrar

The disputed domain names and are registered with Google LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 2, 2020. On November 3, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On November 4, 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 Respondents and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on November 4, 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 November 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 the Respondents of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on November 10, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was November 30, 2020. The Respondents did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondents’ default on December 1, 2020.

The Center appointed Evan D. Brown as the sole panelist in this matter on December 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 a well-known provider of customer relationship management (CRM) software. It uses the mark SALESFORCE, which is the subject of many trademark registrations around the world, including United States Reg. No. 2,964,712, registered on July 5, 2005.

The disputed domain name was registered on April 9, 2020, and the disputed domain name was registered on October 22, 2019. The Complainant asserts that the disputed domain names have been used by the Respondents to impersonate the Complainant’s billing team or individual members thereof to send email messages to the Complainant’s customers, asking for payment of fake and fraudulent invoices, or for payment of a legitimate invoice that was intercepted but which the Respondent is seeking to channel the payment to themselves instead of the Complainant. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks; that the Respondents have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names; and, that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith. B. Respondents

The Respondents 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, namely, that:

(i) the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and

(ii) the Respondents have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names; and

(iii) the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith.

The Panel finds that all three of these elements have been met in this case. A. Consolidation

There are two named Respondents, and the Complainant requests that they be consolidated into this matter. The Panel finds that consolidation is proper in this case. Paragraph 10(e) of the Rules states that a “[p]anel shall decide a request by a Party to consolidate multiple domain name disputes in accordance with the Policy and these Rules”. Paragraph 10(c) of the Rules provides, in relevant part, that “[t]he [p]anel shall ensure that the administrative proceeding takes place with due expedition”. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 4.11.2, summarizes the consensus view of UDRP panels on the consolidation of multiple respondents and provides that where a complaint is filed against multiple respondents, panels consider whether the domain names or corresponding websites are subject to common control, and whether the consolidation would be fair and equitable to all parties.

The record indicates the disputed domain names are under common control. Among other things, both of the disputed domain names use the same registrar, name serves, and proxy service. Both of them contain similar misspellings of the Complainant’s SALESFORCE trademark, notably including the substitution of the number “0” in place of the letter “o” therein, and, according to the Complainant, both have been used in connection with similar email phishing and fraud schemes, both directed to the same customer of the Complainant. Additionally, each of the registrant email addresses disclosed by the Registrar contains a name that differs from the identified registrant’s name, and each of these email addresses is associated with clearly cybersquatted domain names relating to other third-party brands – in one case and in the other case. In each of these cases, the domain names associated with these clearly fictitious email addresses were registered just days before each of the associated disputed domain names. More specifically, the domain name was registered on April 7, 2020, using the same registrar and proxy service as the disputed domain names, and the corresponding disputed domain name was registered two days later, on April 9, 2020. Similarly, the domain name was registered on October 16, 2019, using the same registrar and proxy service as the disputed domain names, and the corresponding disputed domain name was registered six days later on October 22, 2019.

The Respondents have not presented any arguments as to why consolidation would be unfair or inequitable. Accordingly, conditions for proper consolidation of the disputed domain names into one matter are present here. B. Identical or Confusingly Similar

This element requires the Panel to consider two issues: first, whether the Complainant has rights in a relevant mark; and, second, whether the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to that mark. The Panel finds the Complainant has established rights in the SALESFORCE mark based on the trademark registrations in various jurisdictions around the world.

The Panel further finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark.

The disputed domain names in a web browser address bar (or in the “From:” line of an email message) look like the SALESFORCE mark. This similarity in appearance is sufficient to convince the Panel that the Complainant has satisfied the first element of the UDRP. See VMWARE, Inc. v. Whois Agent, Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc. / Raymond Morgan,WIPO Case No. D2016-1629 (finding domain name confusingly similar to VRMWARE mark). Further, the substitution of the letter “o” with the number “0” in both disputed domain names, as well as the addition of the letter “s” in the disputed domain name , do not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.9.

The Complainant has satisfied this first element under the Policy. C. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant will succeed under this element of the Policy if it makes a prima facie showing that the Respondents lack rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names, and if the Respondents fail to rebut that prima facie showing. On this point, the Complainant asserts the following:

- the Respondents are not associated or affiliated with the Complainant;

- the Respondents have never been authorized by the Complainant to use the Complainant’s marks in any manner, much less as part of the disputed domain names;

- on information and belief, the Respondents willfully adopted the SALESFORCE mark within the disputed domain names in an attempt to unfairly capitalize on the valuable goodwill of the Complainant;

- the disputed domain names do not reflect the Respondents’ common names or organization names;

- the disputed domain names are or have been used in connection with a fraudulent scheme intended to deceive the Complainant’s customers into sharing their sensitive financial information and paying money to the Respondents to satisfy false and fraudulent invoices, or to divert legitimate invoice payments away from the Complainant and to the Respondents; and

- the Respondents’ use of the disputed domain names does not constitute a bona fide sale of goods or services or commercial use, nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.

The Panel finds these facts establish a prima facie showing. The Respondents have not provided any evidence to overcome that showing. Accordingly, the Complainant has satisfied this second element of the Policy. D. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

As noted in the discussion about the first element of the Policy, above, the Panel finds that the Respondents registered the disputed domain names because they look like the SALESFORCE mark. Given how well-known that mark is, there is no easily conceivable reason for registering or using the disputed domain names that the Respondents could make that would not be characterized as bad faith under the UDRP factors. Further, use of the disputed domain names to send fraudulent email messages is a clear example of bad faith under the Policy. Previous panels have categorically held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity (here, to impersonate the Complainant’s billing team or individual members thereof to send email messages to the Complainant’s customers, asking for payment of fake and fraudulent invoices, or for payment of a legitimate invoice that was intercepted) can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a response. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.13.

Accordingly, the Complainant has satisfied this third element of the Policy. 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 names and be transferred to the Complainant.

Evan D. Brown
Sole Panelist
Date: December 16, 2020

Full & Egal Universal Law Academy