Insight Global, LLC v Author Kali

WIPO Case No. D2024-2627

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Insight Global, LLC v. Author Kali

Case No. D2024-2627

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Insight Global, LLC, United States of America (“United States”), represented by

Troutman Pepper, United States.

The Respondent is Author Kali, India.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <insight-globals.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 June 26, 2024.
On June 27, 2024, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in
connection with the disputed domain name. On June 28, 2024, 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 (Privacy Protect, LLC) and contact information in the Complaint.
The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on July 2, 2024 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 July 2, 2024.

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 July 10, 2024. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 30, 2024. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on August 11, 2024.

page 2

The Center appointed Kaya Köklü as the sole panelist in this matter on August 13, 2024. 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 an information technology staffing and recruitment provider based in the United States.

It was established in 2001 and meanwhile operates 50 offices, most of them in the United States.

The Complainant is the registered owner of the INSIGHT GLOBAL trademark. Among others, the protected in class 35.

Complainant owns the United States Trademark Registration No. 3630697, registered on June 2, 2009, for

The Complainant further owns and operates its main website at “

The Respondent is reportedly located in India.

The screenshots, as provided by the Complainant, show that the disputed domain name previously resolved to a website similar, if not identical, to the Complainant’s official website, including the use of the Complainant’s INSIGHT GLOBAL trademark and copyrighted material (Annex 7 to the Complaint). By doing so, the associated website created the look and feel as if it was operated by the Complainant itself, without any visible and accurate disclaimer describing the (lack of) relationship between the Parties.

At the time of the Decision, the disputed domain name resolves to a parked page.

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.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

According to paragraph 15(a) of the Rules, the Panel shall decide the Complaint in accordance with the
Policy, the Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.

In accordance with paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that each of the three following elements is satisfied:

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

has rights; and

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

(iii)      the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

page 3

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy states that the Complainant bears the burden of proving that all these requirements are fulfilled, even if the Respondent has not replied to the Complainant’s contentions. Stanworth Development Limited v. E Net Marketing Ltd., WIPO Case No. D2007-1228.

However, concerning the uncontested information provided by the Complainant, the Panel may, where
relevant, accept the provided reasonable factual allegations in the Complaint as true. See section 4.3 of the
WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”).

For the evaluation of this case, the Panel has taken note of the WIPO Overview 3.0, and, where appropriate, will decide consistent with the consensus views stated therein.

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 3.0, section 1.7.

The Complainant has shown rights in respect of its INSIGHT GLOBAL trademark for the purposes of the

Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1.

The entirety of the mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain
name is confusingly similar to the INSIGHT GLOBAL mark for the purposes of the Policy.
WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.

Although the addition of other terms or letters, here the additional hyphen and the letter “s” to the term “global”, may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of this letter does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8.

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. In the absence of a response, the Respondent has particularly failed to demonstrate any of the other non-exclusive circumstances evidencing rights or legitimate interests under the Policy, paragraph 4(c) or other evidence of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

page 4

Even more, the Panel particularly notes that the nature of the disputed domain name, which comprises the Complainant’s INSIGHT GLOBAL trademark in its entirety, and the content and design of the associated website, which is virtually a copy of the Complainant’s official website. In view of the Panel, this clearly indicates the Respondent’s awareness of the Complainant and its trademark and its illicit intent to take unfair advantage of it, which does not support a finding of any rights or legitimate interests.

In addition, Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity, here presumably phishing, impersonation, and/or other types of fraud, can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.13.1.

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.

Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out a list of non-exhaustive circumstances that may indicate that a domain name was registered and used in bad faith, but other circumstances may be relevant in assessing whether a respondent’s registration and use of a domain name is in bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.1.

In the present case, the Panel notes that the Respondent must have had the Complainant and its INSIGHT GLOBAL trademark in mind when registering the disputed domain name, particularly considering the nature of the disputed domain name and content of the associated website. It is obvious to the Panel, that the

Respondent has deliberately chosen the disputed domain name, which is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s INSIGHT GLOBAL trademark, to target and impersonate the Complainant in order to generate traffic to its own website. Consequently, the Panel is convinced that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name in bad faith.

As regards bad faith use, the Panel notes that the disputed domain name previously resolved to a website which attempted to impersonate the Complainant. In this regard, the overall content and design of the associated website, including the prominent use of the Complainant’s INSIGHT GLOBAL word and figurative mark, as well as the inherently misleading nature of the disputed domain name, is, in view of the Panel, sufficient evidence that the Respondent has intentionally tried to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its websites by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant.

Further, Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity, here impersonation and presumably phishing, constitutes bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.4.

The Respondent also appears to have furnished incomplete or false contact details for purposes of registration of the disputed domain name, as the courier was unable to deliver the Center’s written communication, which additionally supports a finding of bad faith.

All in all, the Panel is convinced that the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith under the Policy.

The Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element of the Policy.

page 5

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, <insight-globals.com>, be transferred to the Complainant.

/Kaya Köklü/ Kaya Köklü Sole Panelist Date: August 27, 2024