ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Amdocs Development Ltd.; Amdocs Software Systems Ltd.; and Amdocs Software Solutions LLC v. Eric Mikovich Case No. D2024-2157 1. The Parties The Complainants are Amdocs Development Ltd.; Amdocs Software Systems Ltd.; and Amdocs Software Solutions LLC, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Liad Whatstein & Co., Israel. The Respondent is Eric Mikovich, United States. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name
(the “Domain Name”) is registered with NameSilo, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 26, 2024. On May 27, 2024, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On May 27, 2024, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Name which differed from the named Respondent (PrivacyGuardian.org llc) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainants on May 28, 2024, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainants to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainants filed an amended Complaint on May 30, 2024. 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 May 31, 2024. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was June 20, 2024. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on June 21, 2024.
page 2 The Center appointed Michelle Brownlee as the sole panelist in this matter on July 1, 2024. 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 Complainants are affiliated companies that develop and market software solutions in various fields. The Complainants own numerous registrations for the trademark AMDOCS in jurisdictions throughout the world, including: United States Registration Number 2278885, registered on September 21, 1999; International Registration Number 1302596, registered on April 11, 2016; and European Union Trade Mark Registration Number 015184252, registered on July 13, 2016. The Complainants operate a website using the domain name . The Domain Name was registered on April 8, 2024. The Domain Name is not associated with a website. The Complainants received inquiries from job seekers who were contacted by someone using the email address “[…]@joinamdocs.team” claiming to be a recruiter employed by the Complainants about a non-existent job posting. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainants The Complainants contend that they have satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the Domain Name. The Complainants contend that they have rights in the AMDOCS trademark, that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the AMDOCS trademark, that the Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the Domain Name and that the Respondent registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith. The Complainants contend that the Respondent used the Domain Name to send fraudulent emails offering job interviews to people for a non-existent position in the Complainants’ companies for the purpose of collecting personal information. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainants’ contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the Complainants’ trademark and the Domain Name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7.
page 3 The Complainants have shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1. The entirety of the mark is reproduced within the Domain Name. Accordingly, the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7. Although the addition of another term here, “join,” may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such term does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8. The Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which the Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name. Although the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the difficult task of “proving a negative”, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. As such, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name (although the burden of proof always remains on the complainant). If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds the Complainants have established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. The Respondent has not rebutted the Complainants’ prima facie showing and has not come forward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity, here, claimed phishing and impersonation of the Complainants’ employee, can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.13.1. The Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel notes that, for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, paragraph 4(b) of the Policy establishes circumstances, in particular, but without limitation, that, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith. In the present case, the Panel notes that the Respondent used the Domain Name to send emails that appeared to originate with the Complainants for the likely purpose of obtaining personal information under false pretenses. Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out a list of non-exhaustive circumstances that may indicate that a domain name was registered and used in bad faith, but other circumstances may be relevant in assessing whether a respondent’s registration and use of a domain name is in bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.1.
page 4 Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity, here, claimed phishing and impersonation of the Complainants’ employee, constitutes bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.4. Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds the Respondent’s registration and use of the Domain Name constitutes bad faith under the Policy. The Panel finds that the Complainants have established the 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 Domain Name be transferred to the Complainants. /Michelle Brownlee/ Michelle Brownlee Sole Panelist Date: July 11, 2024
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy