About Intellectual Property IP Training IP Outreach IP for… IP and... IP in... Patent & Technology Information Trademark Information Industrial Design Information Geographical Indication Information Plant Variety Information (UPOV) IP Laws, Treaties & Judgements IP Resources IP Reports Patent Protection Trademark Protection Industrial Design Protection Geographical Indication Protection Plant Variety Protection (UPOV) IP Dispute Resolution IP Office Business Solutions Paying for IP Services Negotiation & Decision-Making Development Cooperation Innovation Support Public-Private Partnerships The Organization Working with WIPO Accountability Patents Trademarks Industrial Designs Geographical Indications Copyright Trade Secrets WIPO Academy Workshops & Seminars World IP Day WIPO Magazine Raising Awareness Case Studies & Success Stories IP News WIPO Awards Business Universities Indigenous Peoples Judiciaries Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions Economics Gender Equality Global Health Climate Change Competition Policy Sustainable Development Goals Enforcement Frontier Technologies Mobile Applications Sports Tourism PATENTSCOPE Patent Analytics International Patent Classification ARDI – Research for Innovation ASPI – Specialized Patent Information Global Brand Database Madrid Monitor Article 6ter Express Database Nice Classification Vienna Classification Global Design Database International Designs Bulletin Hague Express Database Locarno Classification Lisbon Express Database Global Brand Database for GIs PLUTO Plant Variety Database GENIE Database WIPO-Administered Treaties WIPO Lex - IP Laws, Treaties & Judgments WIPO Standards IP Statistics WIPO Pearl (Terminology) WIPO Publications Country IP Profiles WIPO Knowledge Center WIPO Technology Trends Global Innovation Index World Intellectual Property Report PCT – The International Patent System ePCT Budapest – The International Microorganism Deposit System Madrid – The International Trademark System eMadrid Article 6ter (armorial bearings, flags, state emblems) Hague – The International Design System eHague Lisbon – The International System of Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications eLisbon UPOV PRISMA Mediation Arbitration Expert Determination Domain Name Disputes Centralized Access to Search and Examination (CASE) Digital Access Service (DAS) WIPO Pay Current Account at WIPO WIPO Assemblies Standing Committees Calendar of Meetings WIPO Official Documents Development Agenda Technical Assistance IP Training Institutions COVID-19 Support National IP Strategies Policy & Legislative Advice Cooperation Hub Technology and Innovation Support Centers (TISC) Technology Transfer Inventor Assistance Program WIPO GREEN WIPO's Pat-INFORMED Accessible Books Consortium WIPO for Creators WIPO ALERT Member States Observers Director General Activities by Unit External Offices Job Vacancies Procurement Results & Budget Financial Reporting Oversight

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center


Ropes & Gray LLP v. David Turcotte

Case No. D2017-2474

1. The Parties

Complainant is Ropes & Gray LLP of Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America ("United States"), represented internally.

Respondent is David Turcotte of Grand Rapids, Michigan, United States.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <ropsgray.com> is registered with FastDomain, Inc. (the "Registrar").

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on December 15, 2017. On the same date, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On December 18, 2017, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing Respondent's 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on December 20, 2017. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for a response was January 9, 2018. The Center received email communications from a third party on January 9, 2018 and January 11, 2018. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent's default on January 10, 2018.

The Center appointed Michael A. Albert as the sole panelist in this matter on January 25, 2018. 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, Ropes & Gray LLP, is an international law firm founded by John Codman Ropes and John Chipman Gray in 1865. Complainant has always been known by the name "Ropes & Gray" and has attracted substantial press attention worldwide.

Complainant owns and uses its ROPES & GRAY trademark (United States Reg. No. 2902936, registered November 16, 2004) in connection with its ongoing business activities.

Complainant registered on October 12, 1995, and continues to use, its principal domain name <ropesgray.com>.

The disputed domain name was registered on June 5, 2017. It resolves to a webpage displaying pay-per-click links.

5. Parties' Contentions

A. Complainant

Complainant contends that the disputed domain name, <ropsgray.com>, is a common mistyping of Complainant's registered trademark as it differs from Complainant's mark merely by one letter – the omission of the letter "e". Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is therefore likely to cause confusion, to cause mistake, and to deceive as to the affiliation, connection or association of Respondent with Complainant Ropes & Gray LLP.

Complainant contends that there is no relationship or affiliation between Complainant and Respondent giving rise to any license, permission or other right by which Respondent could own or use any domain name incorporating Complainant's registered trademark ROPES & GRAY.

Complainant further contends that Respondent intentionally attempted to imitate Complainant's Ropes & Gray name, and its <ropesgray.com> domain name in a phishing attempt by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent's website or of a product or service on Respondent's website.

B. Respondent

Respondent did not reply to Complainant's contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's distinctive mark. It is visually and phonetically similar and almost identical to Complainant's mark. Respondent merely omitted the letter "e" and ampersand in Complainant's ROPES & GRAY trademark. A domain name that contains a common or obvious misspelling of a trademark (often termed "typosquatting") is confusingly similar to such trademark, where the misspelled trademark remains the dominant or principal component of the domain name. See Hogan Lovells International LLP v. Proxy Protection LLC, WIPO Case No. D2017-0921.

The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

On June 5, 2017, Respondent registered the disputed domain name <ropsgray.com> without Complainant's authorization. Respondent's registration was more than 150 years after Complainant was founded, more than 20 years after registration of Complainant's domain name <ropesgray.com>, and more than a decade after Complainant's registration of its trademark ROPES & GRAY.

Complainant's rights in its ROPES & GRAY mark are clearly established by its registration and continued use. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is neither known by, nor authorized to use, Complainant's mark. In addition, nothing in the record reflects Respondent's use of the disputed domain name in connection with any bona fide offering of goods or services.

The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Respondent was undoubtedly aware of Complainant and had Complainant's ROPES & GRAY mark in mind when registering the disputed domain name. The similarity between the disputed domain name and Complainant's well-known mark make it highly implausible that Respondent's registration of a confusingly similar domain name was not an intentional effort to capitalize on or otherwise take advantage of the likely confusion with Complainant's trademark rights. By registering and using a domain name that merely omits the "e" in Complainant's mark, Respondent deliberately set out to cause confusion, to cause mistake, and to deceive as to the affiliation, connection or association of Respondent with Complainant.

Complainant has also shown that Respondent's intent is to mislead or to deceive Complainant's current and prospective clients through phishing emails using the disputed domain name. As part of the phishing scam, Respondent included the disputed domain name in an email sent from an alleged attorney of Ropes & Gray LLP requesting "$150,000" from the email recipient. That alone amounts to bad faith.

The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(iii) 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 disputed domain name <ropsgray.com> be transferred to Complainant.

Michael A. Albert
Sole Panelist
Date: February 5, 2018