Complainant is Lennar Pacific Properties Management, Inc. and Lennar Corporation, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Slates Harwell LLP, United States.
Respondent is Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC, United States / Name Redacted. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 31, 2021. On March 31, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On March 31, 2021, 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 April 7, 2021, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on April 7, 2021.1 The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to 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 April 9, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 29, 2021. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on April 30, 2021. The Center appointed Lorelei Ritchie as the sole panelist in this matter on May 12, 2021. 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 Lennar Pacific Properties Management, Inc., together with affiliated company, Complainant Lennar Corporation (collectively, “Complainant”) provides real estate management, brokerage, development, construction, and financial services. Complainant has provided these services under the LENNAR mark since 1973. Complainant owns several registrations for its LENNAR mark. These include United States Registration Nos. 3,108,401 (registered June 27, 2006) and 3,477,143 (registered July 29, 2008). Complainant additionally interacts with consumers and prospective consumers via its online presence. In this regard, Complainant owns the registration for the domain name The disputed domain name, Respondent has used email addresses associated with the disputed domain name to engage in potentially fraudulent behavior whereby Respondent posed as an official human resources representative of Complainant, and sought to obtain sensitive personal and financial information from prospective job applicants of Complainant. Respondent has no affiliation with Complainant. Complainant has not authorized any activities by Respondent, nor any use of its trademarks thereby. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Complainant contends that (i) the disputed domain name, In particular, Complainant contends that it has established rights in its registered LENNAR mark. Complainant contends that Respondent has engaged in a “phishing” scheme. In particular, Complainant alleges that Respondent has registered the disputed domain name, which contains Complainant’s LENNAR mark, with the addition of the descriptive term “corporation,” which reflects Complaint’s corporate identity. Complainant further contends that Respondent has used the disputed domain name to set up email accounts meant to confuse potential job applicants of Complainant into providing Respondent their sensitive personal and financial information. Complainant contends that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the registration or use of the disputed domain name. Rather, Complainant contends that Respondent has acted in bad faith in sending out fraudulent emails, when Respondent was clearly aware of Complainant’s rights in the LENNAR mark. B. Respondents Respondent did not file a reply to Complainants’ contentions in this proceeding. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Panel must first determine whether the disputed domain name Numerous UDRP panels have agreed that supplementing or modifying a trademark with dictionary or descriptive words does not avoid a finding of confusingly similarity for purposes of satisfying this first prong of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. See, for example, Inter Ikea Systems B.V. v. Polanski,WIPO Case No. D2000-1614 (transferring The Panel therefore finds that Complainant has satisfied the first UDRP element, in showing that the disputed domain name 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”. Respondent did not submit a reply to the Complaint, however. Rather, as mentioned in Section 4 of this Panel’s decision, Respondent has used an email account associated with the disputed domain name to engage in fraudulent behavior whereby Respondent has merely used the disputed domain name to set up email accounts in an apparent phishing scheme. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has made a prima facie showing of Respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, which Respondent has not rebutted. The Panel therefore finds that Complainant has satisfied the second UDRP element. 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] website or other online 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] website or location”. As noted in Section 4 of this Panel’s decision, although the disputed domain name resolves to an inactive web page, Respondent has used the disputed domain name to set up email accounts in a manner apparently calculated to confuse potential job applicants of Complainant into providing Respondent their sensitive personal and financial information. Hence, Respondent is trading on the goodwill of Complainant’s trademarks to attract Internet users, presumably for Respondent’s own commercial gain. Given the nature of the use, and the disputed domain name, which incorporates Complainant’s registered LENNAR mark, the Panel finds that despite the inactive website, Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name with knowledge of Complainant’s prior rights, thereby evidencing bad faith. Overall, the Panel finds that Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name 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 name, Lorelei Ritchie 1 Respondent appears to have used the name of a third party (a human resources manager for Complainant) 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. 2 Complainant notes in the amendment to the Complaint that the person named by the Registrar as the registrant was previously a human resources manager for Complainant, and that Respondent may be using this name to shield Respondent’s true identity.
Sole Panelist
Dated: May 25, 2021
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy