WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Insight Global, LLC v. Clava Rikov
Case No. D2014-0318
1. The Parties
The Complainant is Insight Global, LLC of Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America (“US”), represented by Troutman Sanders, LLP, US.
The Respondent is Clava Rikov of Kiev, Ukraine.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The Disputed Domain Name <insightglobalstaffing.com> is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 28, 2014. On March 3, 2014, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On March 3, 2014, 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(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on March 10, 2014. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was March 30, 2014. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 31, 2014.
The Center appointed Desmond J. Ryan as the sole panelist in this matter on April 4, 2014. 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 Disputed Domain Name was registered on August 8, 2011.
The Complainant is an information technology staffing and recruitment provider based in Atlanta, Georgia, US. It claims to be a leading provider in that field with 35 offices in 21 States generating annual revenues of the order of USD 750 million. It was established on April 18, 2001. It registered the domain name <insightglobal.net> on April 28, 2001; it adopted and thereafter used a trademark comprising the words INSIGHT GLOBAL INC within a red “swoosh” and on June 2, 2009 it registered INSIGHT GLOBAL A STAFFING SERVICES COMPANY design trademark (Annex 8 to the Complaint). In each iteration of the mark the dominant particulars comprise the swoosh and the words “Insight Global” (hereinafter, INSIGHT GLOBAL trademark).
The Disputed Domain Name resolves to a website which appears partially to replicate the website of the Complainant, including the prominent positioning of the INSIGHT GLOBAL trademark on its homepage. The webpage also provides a link which takes the users to corresponding parts of the Complainant’s website including a part where the user is invited to submit personal details including names and contact details. The website also includes a tab labeled “Klonopin” which does not appear in the Complainant’s website. According to the Complainant KLONOPIN is a trademark for the drug Clonazapam.
Nothing is known of the Respondent save that the file record for this matter shows that the hard copy of the Complaint forwarded to the Respondent at the address shown for the Respondent in the WhoIs for the Disputed Domain Name could not be delivered because, according to the courier, DHL, “The receiver is unknown and the provided information is wrong”.
5. Parties’ Contentions
The Complainant contends that:
- it has rights in the INSIGHT GLOBAL trademark both at common law, by virtue of its extensive use, and by virtue of its registration on the Principal Register;
- the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to its INSIGHT GLOBAL trademark as it wholly includes the dominant textual element of that trademark and differs from it only by the addition of the aptly descriptive word “staffing” and the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) which do not detract from the likelihood of the Disputed Domain Name to deceive Internet users;
- the Respondent is not related to the Complainant, has not been authorized to use its trademark in the Disputed Domain Name or otherwise and is not commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name;
- at the time of registering the Disputed Domain Name the Respondent must have known of the Complainant and its rights in the INSIGHT GLOBAL trademark. The Respondent’s actual knowledge of the INSIGHT GLOBAL trademark and the Complainant’s rights in it are evidenced by the fact that very shortly after the Disputed Domain Name was registered it was used to point to a website which substantially replicated the Complainant’s website and included the INSIGHT GLOBAL trademark;
- the Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name with the bad faith intent of using the Disputed Domain Name to misleadingly attract users to a website and has proceeded to use the Disputed Domain Name for that purpose;
- the Respondent’s use of the Disputed Domain Name is not a use in the bona fide offering of goods or services, nor is it a legitimate or noncommercial or fair use;
- the Respondent is attempting to tarnish the Complainant’s INSIGHT GLOBAL trademark including by providing a tab to an unrelated anti-anxiety drug Klonopin;
- the redirection of links within the homepage for the Disputed Domain Name to the Complainant’s has the potential for “providing and obtaining personal information from the Complainant’s clients and prospects by deception”.
- the circumstances evidencing bad faith set out in paragraph 4(b) of the Policy are non-exclusive.
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant’s substantial use and promotion of its name and trademark INSIGHT GLOBAL for over twelve years is, in the Panel’s view, evidence that the mark is prima facie distinctive and the use has been extensive such as to establish unregistered rights in that trademark. The Complainant’s rights are further established by its 2009 registration in the Principal Register in the US Patent and Trademarks Office. The fact that such use, visually, appears to have always been accompanied by the device of a red “swoosh” does not negate the strong visual and aural impact of the words “Insight” and “Global” in the mark.
The Panel therefore finds that the Complainant has rights in the INSIGHT GLOBAL trademark.
The Disputed Domain Name wholly incorporates the textual elements of the Complainant’s trademark. It is only those elements which can be incorporated in a domain name so it is those characters which are of prime importance in considering whether the trademark and the Disputed Domain Name are confusingly similar. That is particularly the case where, as here, the textual elements are dominant.
The Panel therefore finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
By the time the Disputed Domain Name was registered in August 2011 the Complainant’s INSIGHT GLOBAL trademark had been in use for over ten years. Very shortly after its registration the Disputed Domain Name was directed to a website which prominently included the INSIGHT GLOBAL trademark and displayed a website which closely imitated the look and feel of the Complainant’s website and purported to offer the services of the Complainant. This raises a strong presumption that the Disputed Domain Name was registered in full knowledge of the Complainant’s business and its rights in the INSIGHT GLOBAL trademark and with the intention to use the Disputed Domain Name fraudulently to attract to the website Internet users seeking to access the Complainant’s services. Such registration and use is not only in bad faith but also suggests an intention to use the Disputed Domain Name in the perpetration of a fraud.
There is no other apparent basis upon which the Respondent could claim any rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name and the Respondent has failed to respond to the Complainant’s allegations in this respect.
The Panel therefore finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name.
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
As discussed above the use of the Disputed Domain Name to direct to a site which partially replicates the Complainant’s website including exact reproductions of the dominant features of the Complainant’s trademark clearly evidences the Respondent’s knowledge of the Complainant and its rights in the trademark. It further evidences the intention of the Respondent to attract to its website persons seeking to access the website of the Complainant. Further evidence of bad faith registration lies in the fact that the address given in the WhoIs for the Disputed Domain Name appears to be false.
The Panel therefore finds that the Disputed Domain Name has been registered in bad faith.
The Respondent has used the Disputed Domain Name to direct to a website which so resembles the Complainant’s website that users will inevitably believe that they have reached the Complainant. Having reached the Respondent’s website the user is then invited to click on links to the Complainant’s website, including links inviting the submission of personal details. It is not apparent on the face of the record what advantage may accrue to the Respondent from this. The Complainant contends that it has the potential to facilitate “phishing”. Whether or not that is so or whether or not the diversion of such data has the potential to compromise the integrity of the user or its address, it is the case that the Respondent is deliberately using the Disputed Domain Name in such a way as to deceive users into believing that they have accessed the Complainant’s site. Such use is in bad faith even if it does not sit squarely within the categories enumerated in paragraph 4(b) of the Policy. As the Policy makes clear and the Complainant correctly points out those categories are not exhaustive.
The Panel therefore finds that the Disputed Domain Name is being used in bad faith.
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 <insightglobalstaffing.com> be transferred to the Complainant.
Desmond J. Ryan AM
Date: April 14, 2014