ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Equifax Inc. v. Taras Jurczak Case No. D2022-1005 1. The Parties The Complainant is Equifax Inc., United States of America ("United States"), represented by The GigaLaw Firm, Douglas M. Isenberg, Attorney At Law, LLC, United States. The Respondent is Taras Jurczak, United States. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name is registered with IONOS SE (the "Registrar"). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on March 23, 2022. On March 28, 2022, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On March 29, 2022, 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 March 29, 2022, 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 amendment to the Complaint on March 31, 2022. 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 the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on April 5, 2022. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 25, 2022. The Respondent's informal communication was received by the Center on April 7, 2022. The Center sent the Commencement of Panel Appointment Process to the Parties on April 26, 2022. page 2 The Center appointed Evan D. Brown as the sole panelist in this matter on May 3, 2022. 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 information solutions and human resources business process outsourcing services. It owns the trademark EQUIFAX, which it has registered in many jurisdictions around the world, including the United States (Reg. No. 1027544, registered on December 16, 1975). According to the WhoIs records, the disputed domain name was registered on July 7, 2021. The Respondent has configured the disputed domain name to redirect Internet users to a login page for purported "Secure Client Access". The Complainant asserts this activity could be part of a phishing scam. 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 file a formal Response to the Complaint but sent an email to the Center dated April 7, 2022 in which it stated, generally, that it was trying to ascertain information about this proceeding. 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. The Panel finds that all three of these elements have been met in this case. A. 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 name is identical or confusingly similar to that mark. This element under the Policy functions primarily as a standing requirement. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition ("WIPO Overview 3.0"), section 1.7. 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 EQUIFAX mark by providing evidence of its trademark registrations. The disputed domain name incorporates the EQUIFAX mark in its entirety. This is sufficient for showing confusing similarity under the Policy. The addition of the word "dispute" does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. page 3 It is standard practice when comparing a disputed domain name to a complainant's trademark, to not take the Top-Level Domain into account. See WIPO Overview 3.0 at section 1.11.1 ("The applicable Top-Level Domain ('TLD') in a domain name (e.g., '.com', '.club', '.nyc') is viewed as a standard registration requirement and as such is disregarded under the first element confusing similarity test."). The Panel finds that the Complainant has established this first element under the Policy. 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 of demonstrating rights or legitimate interests shifts to the Respondent (with the burden of proof always remaining with the Complainant). On this point, the Complainant asserts, among other things, that: (1) it has not authorized the Respondent to use the EQUIFAX mark in the disputed domain name, (2) use of the EQUIFAX mark in the disputed domain name is not a noncommercial or fair use, (3) the Respondent has not been commonly known by the disputed domain name, and (4) the use of the disputed domain name in connection with an apparent phishing scam is not a bona fide offering of goods or services. The Panel finds that the Complainant has made the required prima facie showing. The Respondent has not presented evidence to overcome this prima facie showing. Nothing in the record otherwise tilts the balance in the Respondent's favor. Accordingly, 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 [the 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 [the respondent's] website or location or of a product or service on [the respondent's] website or location." Because the Complainant's EQUIFAX mark is well known, it is implausible to believe that the Respondent was not aware of that mark when it registered the disputed domain name. In the circumstances of this case, 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 apparently operate a phishing scam. For these reasons, the Panel finds that the Complainant has successfully met this 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 be transferred to the Complainant. /Evan D. Brown/ Evan D. Brown Sole Panelist Date: May 6, 2022
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy