À propos de la propriété intellectuelle Formation en propriété intellectuelle Sensibilisation à la propriété intellectuelle La propriété intellectuelle pour… Propriété intellectuelle et… Propriété intellectuelle et… Information relative aux brevets et à la technologie Information en matière de marques Information en matière de dessins et modèles industriels Information en matière d’indications géographiques Information en matière de protection des obtentions végétales (UPOV) Lois, traités et jugements dans le domaine de la propriété intellectuelle Ressources relatives à la propriété intellectuelle Rapports sur la propriété intellectuelle Protection des brevets Protection des marques Protection des dessins et modèles industriels Protection des indications géographiques Protection des obtentions végétales (UPOV) Règlement extrajudiciaire des litiges Solutions opérationnelles à l’intention des offices de propriété intellectuelle Paiement de services de propriété intellectuelle Décisions et négociations Coopération en matière de développement Appui à l’innovation Partenariats public-privé L’Organisation Travailler avec nous Responsabilité Brevets Marques Dessins et modèles industriels Indications géographiques Droit d’auteur Secrets d’affaires Académie de l’OMPI Ateliers et séminaires Journée mondiale de la propriété intellectuelle Magazine de l’OMPI Sensibilisation Études de cas et exemples de réussite Actualités dans le domaine de la propriété intellectuelle Prix de l’OMPI Entreprises Universités Peuples autochtones Instances judiciaires Ressources génétiques, savoirs traditionnels et expressions culturelles traditionnelles Économie Égalité des genres Santé mondiale Changement climatique Politique en matière de concurrence Objectifs de développement durable Application Technologies de pointe Applications mobiles Sport Tourisme PATENTSCOPE Analyse de brevets Classification internationale des brevets Programme ARDI – Recherche pour l’innovation Programme ASPI – Information spécialisée en matière de brevets Base de données mondiale sur les marques Madrid Monitor Base de données Article 6ter Express Classification de Nice Classification de Vienne Base de données mondiale sur les dessins et modèles Bulletin des dessins et modèles internationaux Base de données Hague Express Classification de Locarno Base de données Lisbon Express Base de données mondiale sur les marques relative aux indications géographiques Base de données PLUTO sur les variétés végétales Base de données GENIE Traités administrés par l’OMPI WIPO Lex – lois, traités et jugements en matière de propriété intellectuelle Normes de l’OMPI Statistiques de propriété intellectuelle WIPO Pearl (Terminologie) Publications de l’OMPI Profils nationaux Centre de connaissances de l’OMPI Série de rapports de l’OMPI consacrés aux tendances technologiques Indice mondial de l’innovation Rapport sur la propriété intellectuelle dans le monde PCT – Le système international des brevets ePCT Budapest – Le système international de dépôt des micro-organismes Madrid – Le système international des marques eMadrid Article 6ter (armoiries, drapeaux, emblèmes nationaux) La Haye – Le système international des dessins et modèles industriels eHague Lisbonne – Le système d’enregistrement international des indications géographiques eLisbon UPOV PRISMA Médiation Arbitrage Procédure d’expertise Litiges relatifs aux noms de domaine Accès centralisé aux résultats de la recherche et de l’examen (WIPO CASE) Service d’accès numérique aux documents de priorité (DAS) WIPO Pay Compte courant auprès de l’OMPI Assemblées de l’OMPI Comités permanents Calendrier des réunions Documents officiels de l’OMPI Plan d’action de l’OMPI pour le développement Assistance technique Institutions de formation en matière de propriété intellectuelle Mesures d’appui concernant la COVID-19 Stratégies nationales de propriété intellectuelle Assistance en matière d’élaboration des politiques et de formulation de la législation Pôle de coopération Centres d’appui à la technologie et à l’innovation (CATI) Transfert de technologie Programme d’aide aux inventeurs WIPO GREEN Initiative PAT-INFORMED de l’OMPI Consortium pour des livres accessibles L’OMPI pour les créateurs WIPO ALERT États membres Observateurs Directeur général Activités par unité administrative Bureaux extérieurs Avis de vacance d’emploi Achats Résultats et budget Rapports financiers Audit et supervision

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

NCI Group, Inc. v. Gab White, NCI

Case No. D2017-1910

1. The Parties

Complainant is NCI Group, Inc. of Houston, Texas, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Bracewell L.L.P., United States.

Respondent is Gab White, NCI of Houston, Texas, United States.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <ncibuildingsystem.com> is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 29, 2017. On October 2, 2017, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On October 3, 2017, 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 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on October 5, 2017. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was October 25, 2017. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on October 26, 2017.

The Center appointed Lawrence K. Nodine as the sole panelist in this matter on November 3, 2017. 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 is a Houston, Texas based company. For approximately twenty five years, Complainant has done business as NCI Building Systems. It owns the trademarks NCI (United States Reg. No. 75053842; registered January 7, 1997); NCI BUILDING COMPONENTS (United States Reg. No. 2028844, registered January 7, 1997); and NCI BUILDINGS GROUP (United States Reg. No. 4560497, registered July 1, 2014). In addition, Complainant owns the domain name <ncibuildingsystems.com> (registered August 11, 2004).

Respondent is a Houston, Texas based individual who registered the disputed domain name <ncibuildingsystem.com> on July 20, 2017. The disputed domain name does not resolve to an active website.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

Complainant alleges that Respondent registered the disputed domain name to send emails in an attempt to purchase electronic equipment from or establish credit with vendors by falsely claiming to represent Complainant. According to Complainant, Respondent’s emails included a signature block purportedly of Complainant’s Vice President of Procurement. Complainant maintains that it did not authorize the emails and that it was alerted to the emails when vendors contacted it after receiving the emails.

According to Complainant, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark as evidenced by the confusion expressed by the vendors who contacted Complainant to inquire whether Complainant had authorized the emails sent by Respondent. Moreover, Complainant alleges that Respondent cannot establish any rights or legitimate interest to the disputed domain name as he is using the disputed domain name for a fraudulent purpose. Lastly, Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith as evidenced by the fact that Respondent provided false registration credentials when registering the disputed domain name (e.g., Respondent attempted to register the disputed domain name to make it appear that the registrant was Complainant’s Vice President of Procurement and Complainant was the registrant organization) and then created an email address associated with the disputed domain name that appeared to belong to Complainant’s Vice President of Procurement for the purpose of furthering a scheme to fraudulently obtain equipment by posing as Complainant.

B. Respondent

Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

Complainant’s trademark registrations establish that it has rights in the marks NCI, NCI BUILDING COMPONENTS, and NCI BUILDINGS GROUP. The disputed domain name incorporates the mark NCI in its entirety and a substantial portion of the marks NCI BUILDING COMPONENTS and NCI BUILDINGS GROUP such that the dominant feature in both of the marks (NCI BUILDING) is recognizable in the disputed domain name. The addition of “system” does nothing to dispel the potential confusion. In fact, considering that Complainant conducts business as NCI Building Systems, the addition exacerbates the confusion, making it appear that communications from an email associated with the disputed domain name are Complainant’s. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s marks for the purposes of conferring UDRP standing and that Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant has presented a prima facie case for Respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. For example, Complainant has alleged that Respondent has used the disputed domain name for the purposes of fraudulently acquiring electronic equipment from Complainant’s vendors. The Complaint paints a picture of a sophisticated scheme by Respondent (involving the registration of the disputed domain name that differs from Complainant’s own domain name by a single letter and the provision of false registration information to make it appear that the disputed domain name is legitimately associated with Complainant) to defraud businesses by posing as Complainant. Respondent has failed to respond and rebut Complainant’s accusation of serious misuse of the disputed domain name.

Thus, Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Respondent registered and has used the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent’s awareness of Complainant and its marks is evident. Respondent originally attempted to register the disputed to make it appear as if Complainant’s Vice President of Procurement was the registrant. Until Complainant lodged an inaccuracy complaint with ICANN, the WhoIs information for the disputed domain name listed Complainant’s Vice President of Procurement as the registrant, Complainant as the registrant organization, and Complainant’s address as the registrant address. This supports the inference that Respondent registered and intended to use the disputed domain name for an improper purpose. See Mrs. Eva Padberg v. Eurobox Ltd., WIPO Case No. D2007-1886 (providing false contact details matching those of complainant “points to bad faith registration and use”); see also WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”) section 3.2.1 (“[T]he use of (false) contact details … to hide the registrant’s identity” supports an inference of bad faith.). Complainant offers unrebutted evidence that Respondent contacted vendors using an email address associated with the disputed domain name posing as Complainant’s Vice President of Procurement. With these emails, Respondent sought fraudulently to order electronic equipment on credit. This is bad faith use under the Policy.

The Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith.

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 <ncibuildingsystem.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Lawrence K. Nodine
Sole Panelist
Date: November 16, 2017

https://www3.wipo.int/contact/fr/area.jsp?area=arbitration https://www.wipo.int/pressroom/fr/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/fr/disclaim.html https://www.wipo.int/fr/web/privacy-policy/ https://www.wipo.int/fr/web/accessibility/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/fr/sitemap.html https://www3.wipo.int/newsletters/fr/ https://www.wipo.int/podcasts/fr/ https://www.wipo.int/news/fr/