Equifax Inc. v Name Redacted

WIPO Case No. D2023-4331

ARBITRATION

AND

MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Equifax Inc. v. Name Redacted

Case No. D2023-4331

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Equifax Inc., United States of America (“United States”), represented by The GigaLaw

Firm, Douglas M. Isenberg, Attorney at Law, LLC, United States.

The Respondent is Name Redacted.[1]

[1] The Respondent appears to have used the name of a third party when registering the disputed domain name. In light of the potential

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <eqlufax.com> is registered with Squarespace Domains II LLC (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on October 18, 2023. connection with the disputed domain name. On October 19, 2023, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent (Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 7151571251 / Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 7151571251) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on November 1, 2023 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 amendment to the Complaint on November 3, 2023.

The Center verified that the Complaint, together with the amendment to 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”).

page 2

In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on November 8, 2023. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was November 28, 2023. A third party sent an email to the Center on November 10, 2023 claiming that “The domain name <eqlufax.com> was registered fraudulently in my name.” The Respondent did not submit any formal response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Parties of the Commencement of the Panel Appointment Process on December 1, 2023.

The Center appointed Ingrīda Kariņa-Bērziņa as the sole panelist in this matter on December 12, 2023. 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 is a global provider of information services and human resources business process outsourcing services. It operates the “Equifax” consumer credit reporting service. The Complainant was originally incorporated in the State of Georgia (United States) in 1913, and its predecessor company dates back to 1899.

The Complainant is the proprietor of a substantial portfolio of registrations for its EQUIFAX mark, including United States Trademark Registration No. 1027544 for EQUIFAX (word mark), registered on December 16, 1975 for services in class 35.

The Complainant operates its primary business website at the domain name <equifax.com>, which it registered in 1995.

The disputed domain name was registered on October 16, 2023. It does not resolve to an active website.
The record reflects that email exchange (MX) records have been configured for the disputed domain name,
and that the Respondent sent an email impersonating an employee of the Complainant to a client of the

Complainant.

No information is available about the Respondent.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain name.

Notably, the Complainant contends that its highly distinctive EQUIFAX mark is well-known and the disputed domain name is a deliberate misspelling thereof. The Respondent is not connected to the Complainant and is using the disputed domain name for a phishing email impersonating an employee of the Complainant to

attempt to obtain payment from a customer to an account not affiliated with the Complainant.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

Paragraph 4(a) of the UDRP requires the Complainant to make out all three of the following:

page 3

(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the

Complainant has rights; and

(ii) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names; and

(iii) The Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith.

Under paragraph 15(a) of the Rules, “[a] Panel shall decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable”.

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 Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7.

Based on the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has 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 Panel finds the EQUIFAX mark is recognizable within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7. The Panel finds that the disputed domain name, in which the letters “ui” are replaced by the letters “lu,” is an obvious misspelling of the Complainant’s EQUIFAX mark. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.9.

Based on the available record, 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 Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not rebutted the Complainant’s prima facie showing and has not come forward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. There is no evidence that the Respondent is using (or preparing to use) the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering; nor that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name or is making legitimate noncommercial or fair use of it.

page 4

The Panel finds that the disputed domain name has been used by the Respondent attempt to defraud a client of the Complainant by impersonating it. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity, including phishing as claimed in this case, can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.13.1.

Based on the available record, 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 intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark.

Panels have found that the non-use of a domain name would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds the non-use of the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith in the circumstances of this proceeding. Although panelists will look at the totality of the circumstances in each case, factors that have been considered relevant in applying the passive holding doctrine include: (i) the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant’s mark, (ii) the failure of the respondent to submit a response or to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good-faith use, and (iii) the respondent’s concealing its identity or use of false contact details (noted to be in breach of its registration agreement). WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.3. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel notes the distinctiveness or reputation of the Complainant’s EQUIFAX mark, and the composition of the disputed domain name, and finds that in the circumstances of this case the passive holding of the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith under the Policy.

Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity, including phishing as claimed in this case, constitutes bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.4. The Panel further notes that the Respondent appears to have provided false contact information by using the name of a third party when registering the disputed domain name.

Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith under the Policy.

Based on the available record, the Panel finds that the Complainant has 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 disputed domain name <eqlufax.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Ingrīda Kariņa-Bērziņa/

Ingrīda Kariņa-Bērziņa

Sole Panelist
Date: December 26, 2023

identity theft, the Panel has redacted the Respondent’s name from this decision. However, the Panel has attached as Annex 1 to this
decision an instruction to the Registrar regarding transfer of the disputed domain name, which includes the name of the Respondent.
The Panel has authorized the Center to transmit Annex 1 to the Registrar as part of the order in this proceeding, and has indicated
Annex 1 to this decision shall not be published due to the exceptional circumstances of this case. See Banco Bradesco S.A. v.
FAST-12785241 Attn. Bradescourgente.net / Name Redacted, WIPO Case No. D2009-1788.