The Complainant (the “Complainant”) is Latham & Watkins LLP, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Latham & Watkins LLP, United States.
The Respondent (the “Respondent”) is Name Redacted.
2. The Domain Name and RegistrarThe disputed domain name
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 27, 2021. On September 1, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On September 1, 2021, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the 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 the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on September 2, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 22, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on September 23, 2021.
The Center appointed Ellen B Shankman as the sole panelist in this matter on September 30, 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 BackgroundThe Complainant is a law firm with over 2,700 attorneys in twenty-nine offices located in fourteen different countries.
The Complainant claims longstanding common law rights used in commerce at least as early as 1934 in both LATHAM & WATKINS and LATHAM, and provided evidence of multiple trademark registrations for the LATHAM & WATKINS mark, including, inter alia: United States Trademark Registration for LATHAM & WATKINS, No. 2413795, issued on December 19, 2000 and United States Trademark Registration for LATHAM & WATKINS, No. 4986824, issued on June 28, 2016.
The Complainant also has a number of domain names including, inter alia,
The date of the Domain Name registration is May 5, 2021.
The Panel also conducted an independent search to determine that the Domain Name currently resolves to an inactive “error” page.
5. Parties’ Contentions A. ComplainantThe Complainant alleges that Latham & Watkins LLP (“Latham”) is one of the world’s top law firms with over 2,700 attorneys in twenty-nine offices located in fourteen different countries. The Complainant is widely known for offering superior legal services to some of the world’s largest corporations in complex matters, and it is routinely ranked among the best law firms in the world in leading legal publications.
Since its founding in Los Angeles, California, in 1934, the Complainant has offered professional legal services under the LATHAM & WATKINS trademark and associated logos and terms. Through extensive use and advertising of the LATHAM & WATKINS and LATHAM trademarks, these marks have developed a very strong reputation among clients and the legal industry as being associated with high quality legal services.
In addition to owning the above-referenced trademark registrations, the Complainant also has established common-law rights to the LATHAM & WATKINS and LATHAM marks through extensive use and promotion of the marks since at least as early as 1934. The Complainant has also registered and owns numerous domain names consisting of or incorporating its LATHAM & WATKINS and LATHAM marks, including, but not limited to, the domain names identified above.
The Domain Name copies the Complainant’s entire registered LATHAM & WATKINS trademark. Indeed, the only addition to the Domain Name is the term “LLP”, which refers to the Complainant’s full entity name, Latham & Watkins LLP. Further, the Domain Name is nearly identical to and confusingly similar to the Complainant’s
Further, the Complainant claims that the Respondent has (1) no authorization, license, or permission to use the Complainant’s LATHAM or LATHAM & WATKINS marks or register the Domain Name and no reason for registering domain names that fully incorporates the Complainant’s famous mark; (2) no reason to be commonly known by the Complainant’s famous LATHAM or LATHAM & WATKINS marks; and (3) not made a bona fide offering of goods and services on the website or other fair use of the Domain Name. To the contrary, the Respondent has used at least the Domain Name to impersonate the Complainant and thereafter attempt to defraud one of the Complainant’s clients.
The Complaint alleges that the Respondent has used false information to register the Domain Name, which grants the Respondent no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. The Complainant contends that counsel for the Complainant contacted the registrant through the address provided by the Registrar. The registered registrant confirmed that he never registered the Domain Name. Further, this individual had no prior association with the phone number or email address used to register the Domain Name. Further, counsel for the Complainant called the listed telephone number, which was also not in service. It is clear that the Respondent used this individual’s information to falsely register the Domain Name. The Respondent has no legitimate rights to the Domain Name falsely registered in someone else’s name. The Respondent is not making any legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name, which does not host any website. The Complainant suspects that the Domain Name will be used in an attempt to defraud the Complainant at some point in the future. Knowingly providing false information to the Registrar is evidence of bad faith. To conceal its misdeeds, the Respondent attempted to use a proxy service when registering the Domain Name. The Respondent’s use of a proxy service, particularly in this context where the Respondent falsely used an unrelated individual’s information to register the Domain Name, should be taken as further evidence of bad faith.
To summarize the Complaint, the Complainant is the owner of common law rights in LATHAM and multiple registrations for the trademark LATHAM & WATKINS, in respect of legal services. The Domain Name is confusingly similar to the trademark owned by the Complainant. By registering the Domain Name that comprises the Complainant’s trademark and the addition of “llp”, which describes the Complainant’s legal entity status, and the “.com” generic Top-Level-Domain (“gTLD”) extension, the Respondent has created a domain name that is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. The addition of these does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. Therefore, the Domain Name could be considered virtually identical and/or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. The Respondent is suspected that it will use the Domain Name to defraud in the future. The Domain Name was registered using fraudulent information and is being used in bad faith. Thus, the Respondent’s registration and use of the Domain Name constitutes bad faith registration and use under the Policy, and the Complainant requests transfer of the Domain Name.
B. RespondentThe Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and FindingsThe burden for the Complainant under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is to prove:
(i) that the Domain Name registered by the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;
(ii) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and
(iii) that the Domain Name has been registered and used in bad faith.
The Complainant must prove in this administrative proceeding that each of the aforementioned three elements is present in order to obtain the transfer of the Domain Name.
In accordance with paragraph 14(a) of the Rules, if the Respondent does not submit a Response, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, the Panel shall decide the dispute based upon the Complaint. Since the Respondent did not respond to this Complaint, the facts regarding the use and reputation of the Complainant’s mark are taken from the Complaint and are generally accepted as true in the circumstances of this case.
A. Identical or Confusingly SimilarThe Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfactorily proven that it has registered trademark rights for LATHAM & WATKINS.
Further, the Panel finds that the Domain Name integrates the Complainant’s mark and that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. Further, the Panel finds that the addition of “llp” does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the Complainant’s trademark. See Pfizer Inc. v. Asia Ventures, Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2005-0256. See also Ansell Healthcare Products Inc. v. Australian Therapeutics Supplies Pty, Ltd.,WIPO Case No. D2001-0110, stating “The incorporation of a Complainant’s well-known trademark in the registered Domain Name is considered sufficient to find the Domain Name confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark”.
The Panel finds that the choice of adding the “llp” after the full name of LATHAM WATKINS not only fails to distinguish the Domain Name from Complainant’s trademarks and registered domain names, but demonstrates that the Respondent was actually targeting the Complainant’s mark in registering the Domain Name. See Interflora Inc. v. Marie C ivitano,WIPO Case No. D2016-1497 (“the Panel determines that such a generic term referencing an entity type does not distinguish or differentiate the Domain Name from Complainant’s (…) mark.”); see also Accenture Global Services Limited v. Popoola Johnson,WIPO Case No. D2019-0799; Accenture Global Services Limited v. Joshua Kimac,WIPO Case No. D2018-1641.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the first requirement that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademark, under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
B. Rights or Legitimate InterestsThe Panel is convinced that the Respondent knew about the Complainant in choosing the Domain Name. Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy in turn identifies three means through which a respondent may establish rights or legitimate interests in a domain name. Although the complainant bears the ultimate burden of establishing all three elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, panels have recognized that this could result in the often-impossible task of proving a negative, requiring information that is primarily, if not exclusively, within the knowledge of the respondent. Thus, the consensus view is that paragraph 4(c) shifts the burden of production to the respondent to come forward with evidence of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, once the complainant has made a prima facie showing. See, e.g., Document Technologies, Inc. v. International Electronic Communications Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2000-0270.
The Complainant asserts that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name and that it is not related to or affiliated in any way with the Complainant, nor has the Complainant authorized the Respondent to use its trademarks. The Respondent is not known by the Domain Name, does not have permission to use the Complainant’s mark, and is not using the Domain Name for a bona fide offering of goods or services nor making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name.
In addition, the Panel is persuaded that the Respondent has used false information to register the Domain Name, which grants the Respondent no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. See Sanofi v. \ud55c\ub089 \uc774,WIPO Case No. D2019-2064; see also Screwfix Direct Limited v. NameR edacted,WIPO Case No. D2020-3549. The Panel agrees with the Complainant and finds no legitimate by the Respondent in the Domain Name. The Panel’s finding is consistent with other UDRP panels that have categorically held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity (e.g., phishing, distributing malware, unauthorized account access/hacking, impersonation/passing off, or for illegal activity (e.g., “the sale of counterfeit goods or illegal pharmaceuticals, phishing, distributing malware, unauthorized account access/hacking, impersonation/passing off, or other types of fraud can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent.”); see also, e.g., Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. v. Nanci Nette, Name Management Group,WIPO Case No. D2018-0717. See e.g. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.13.1 (“Panels have categorically held that the use of a domain name has established a prima facie case, which was not refuted and that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name”).
Therefore, the Complainant has satisfied the second requirement that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.
C. Registered and Used in Bad FaithThe Panel is persuaded that the Respondent has demonstrated a knowledge of and familiarity with Complainant’s brand. In light of the facts set forth within this Complaint, the Panel finds that it is “not possible to conceive of a plausible situation in which the Respondent would have been unaware of” the Complainant’s brand at the time the Domain Name was registered. See Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows,WIPO Case No. D2000-0003. The addition of the letters “llp” is a clear reference to Latham’s full name, Latham & Watkins LLP. In such circumstances, it is clear that “Respondent was aware or must have been aware of Complainant’s mark when Respondent registered the disputed domain name, and therefore registered it in bad faith”. See Accenture Global Services Limited v. Popoola Johnson,WIPO Case No. D2019-0799.
The Panel agrees with the Complainant’s contention that indeed, the Respondent’s purpose in registering the Domain Name was probably to capitalize at some point on the reputation of the Complainant’s trademark and opportunistic to support illegitimate purposes. See Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. v. Doroven,WIPO Case No. D2010-1196.
A respondent’s use of a complainant’s mark—for said respondent’s commercial benefit—to attract Internet users otherwise seeking said complainant evinces a finding of bad faith is also consistent with the Policy paragraph 4(b)(iv). See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 3.1.4 (“Panels have moreover found the following types of evidence to support a finding that a respondent has registered a domain name to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark: (i) actual confusion, (ii) seeking to cause confusion (including by technical means beyond the domain name itself) for the respondent’s commercial benefit, even if unsuccessful, (iii) the lack of a respondent’s own rights to or legitimate interests in a domain name, (iv) redirecting the domain name to a different respondent-owned website, even where such website contains a disclaimer, (v) redirecting the domain name to the complainant’s (or a competitor’s) website, and (vi) absence of any conceivable good faith use.”). These criteria apply in the present case, which supports the Panel’s finding that the Respondent registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith.
Further, the Panel is persuaded that the Respondent’s registration of the Domain Name was achieved through knowingly providing false information to the Registrar in order to conceal its identity and to escape liability for its fraudulent conduct. Knowingly providing false information to the Registrar is evidence of bad faith. See Ticketmaster Corporation v. Dmitri Prem,WIPO Case No. D2000-1550; see also Forte Communications, Inc. v. Service for Life,WIPO Case No. D2004-0613. The Respondent’s use of a proxy service, particularly in this context where the Respondent falsely used another individual’s information to register the Domain Name, supports a finding of bad faith. See Accenture Global Services Limited v. ICS Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2013-2098 ((“[T]aking into account the circumstances surrounding the present case (…) registration of the disputed domain name using the proxy service with the obvious purpose of concealment of the Respondent’s identity can be considered a further indication of the Respondent’s bad faith.”).
The Panel is persuaded that the Respondent deliberately registered the Domain Name to create a misleading and fraudulent impression of association and confusion with the Complainant and intends opportunistically to benefit on the goodwill of the Complainant‘s trademarks and to profit from consumer confusion. See Inter IKEA Systems B.V. v. Targetclix / Anh Vo,WIPO Case No. D2011-1087 (“It is not conceivable that Respondent would not have had actual notice of Complainant’s trademark rights at the time of the registration of the Domain Names…. [Therefore] the Domain Names are not one that one could legitimately adopt other than for the purpose of creating an impression of an association with Complainant.”).
Given the evidence of the Complainant’s prior rights in the trademark, the timing of the registration of the Domain Name with apparent full knowledge of the Complainant, and the use of fraudulent information to obtain the Domain Name, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the third requirement that the Respondent has registered and is using the Domain Names in bad faith, under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
7. DecisionFor the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the Domain Name
Ellen B Shankman
Sole Panelist
Date: October 4, 2021
1 The Respondent appears to have used the name of a third party when registering the Domain Name. In light of the potential identity theft, the Panel has redacted the 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 Domain Name, which includes the name of the 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.