WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Splunk Inc. v. Private Registrant, Digital Privacy Corporation / Kimberly J Sanchez
Case No. D2019-0794
1. The Parties
The Complainant is Splunk Inc., United States of America (“United States”), represented by Chestek Legal, United States.
The Respondent is Private Registrant, Digital Privacy Corporation, United States / Kimberly J Sanchez, United States.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name <spllunk.com> (the “Domain Name”) is registered with 101domain GRS Limited (the “Registrar”).
3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 8, 2019. On April 8, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On April 9, 2019, 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 and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on April 9, 2019 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 amended Complaint on April 26, 2019.
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 April 29, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 19, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May 20, 2019.
The Center appointed Michelle Brownlee as the sole panelist in this matter on May 27, 2019. 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 owns numerous registrations for the trademark SPLUNK in various jurisdictions throughout the world in connection with computer server and search engine software and related services. These include United States Trademark Registration Numbers 3269249 and 4199665, registered on July 24, 2007 and August 28, 2012, respectively, and European Union Trademark Registration Numbers 009888934, 009976481, and 010223576, registered on March 30, 2012, March 31, 2012 and April 4, 2012, respectively.
The Domain Name was registered on February 23, 2019. According to the evidence provided by the Complainant, the Domain Name previously resolved to websites which mimic the login pages of Microsoft Office 365 and Microsoft OneDrive. The Domain Name currently resolves to an inactive website.
5. Parties’ Contentions
The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s SPLUNK trademark, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name, and that the Respondent registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith. The Complainant presented evidence that the Domain Name is being used to host pages that mimic login pages for Microsoft Office365 and Microsoft OneDrive. The Complainant contends that such pages are typically used for phishing in that they are designed to entice people to enter their login credentials to give account access to unauthorized users.
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy provides that in order to be entitled to a transfer of a domain name, a complainant must prove the following three elements:
(1) the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and
(2) the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has demonstrated that it has rights in the SPLUNK trademark. The second level of the Domain Name is identical to the Complainant’s SPLUNK trademark, except that it adds a second “L”. The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides that a respondent can demonstrate rights to or legitimate interests in a domain name by demonstrating one of the following facts:
(i) before receiving any notice of the dispute, the respondent used or made preparations to use the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or
(ii) the respondent has been commonly known by the domain name; or
(iii) the respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name without intent for commercial gain, to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark at issue.
The Respondent has not presented evidence that the Respondent used or made preparations to use the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, that the Respondent is commonly known by the Domain Name or that the Respondent is making a noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name, or in any other way refuted the Complainant’s prima facie case. The Complainant has alleged that the Respondent is using the Domain Name in connection with web pages used for phishing. The Respondent has not refuted those allegations. In the Panel’s view, this cannot be considered a bona fide offering of goods or services. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established this element of the Policy.
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy states that the following circumstances are evidence of registration and use of a domain name in bad faith:
(i) circumstances indicating that the respondent has registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
(ii) the respondent registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that the respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
(iii) the respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) by using the domain name, the respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its web site or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its web site or location or of a product or service on its web site or location.
The Complainant has established bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. The Complainant has alleged that the Domain Name has been used in connection with websites that attract Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark for the malicious purpose of enticing people to enter their Microsoft Office365 and OneDrive login credentials so that these credentials can be used by unauthorized parties to login to such accounts. The Respondent did not reply to these contentions. Under the circumstances, the Panel finds that the Respondent has registered and used the Domain Name 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 Domain Name, <spllunk.com>, be transferred to the Complainant.
Date: June 8, 2019