Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. v Roger Honey, Honey

WIPO Case No. D2024-3874

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. v. Roger Honey, Honey

Case No. D2024-3874

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., United States of America (“United States”), represented by Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP, United States.

The Respondent is Roger Honey, Honey, United States.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <kimlleyhorn.com> (the “Domain Name”) is registered with NameCheap, Inc.

(the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 23, to the Complainant on September 25, 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 September 25, 2024.

2024. On September 24, 2024, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar
verification in connection with the Domain Name. On September 24, 2024, the Registrar transmitted by
email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain
Name that differed from the named Respondent (Redacted for Privacy / Privacy service provided by
The Center verified that the Complaint and 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 Amended Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on September 30, 2024. In
accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was October 20, 2024. The
Respondent did not submit a response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on
October 21, 2024.

page 2

The Center appointed A. Justin Ourso III as the panelist in this matter on October 25, 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, an American corporation that provides planning, engineering, and design consulting services, owns a United States registration, No. 2,788,474, for its KIMLEY-HORN trademark, issued on December 2, 2003, for financial analysis and consultation services in Class 36; and for engineering

consultation, engineering design, software design, and environmental consultation services to assure
compliance with environmental laws and regulations, in Class 42; and a United States registration, No.
4,685,771, for its KIMLEY HORN design trademark, issued on February 10, 2015, for the same services in
the same classes.

The Respondent registered the Domain Name on September 19, 2024, and used it that same day to send an email impersonating a Complainant employee and targeting a Complainant client in an attempt to divert payments to 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 Domain Name.

Notably, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has engaged in intentional misspelling of the
Complainant’s trademark and has sent an email impersonating a Complainant employee and targeting a

Complainant client in a fraudulent attempt to divert fee payments to the Respondent.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not submit a response to the Complaint or the Amended Complaint.

6. Discussion and Findings

A complainant must prove three elements to obtain relief: (i) the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the complainant has rights; (ii) the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name; and (iii) the respondent registered and is using the domain name in bad faith.

Policy, paragraph 4(a).

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Panel finds that the Complainant’s registrations establish its trademark rights. WIPO Overview of WIPO

Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.2.1.

The Domain Name consists of the Complainant’s trademark, omitting the hyphen and adding a second letter trademark is considered to be confusingly similar to the subject mark for the purposes of the first element. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.9. Accordingly, the Panel concludes that the Complainant has proven the first element: the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which it has rights.

“l” immediately adjacent to the existing letter “l.” The Panel finds that the trademark is sufficiently
recognizable within the Domain Name for the Domain Name to be confusingly similar to the trademark.

page 3

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Respondent has not claimed the existence of any circumstance under the Policy, paragraph 4(c), that demonstrates that a respondent has rights to, or legitimate interests in, a domain name. The Complainant, on the other hand, has shown that it established its trademark rights before the Respondent registered the Domain Name; the record contains no evidence that the Respondent is commonly known by the Domain Name; it has not authorized the Respondent to use its trademark; and the Respondent has used the

Domain Name for illegal activity, which is not a bona fide commercial use, a legitimate noncommercial use, or a fair use of the Domain Name. These constitute prima facie a showing that the Respondent lacks any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name under the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(ii), shifting the burden of
production on this second element to the Respondent to come forward with relevant evidence proving rights
or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. WIPO Overview 3.0, sections 2.1 and 2.13. The Respondent
has not submitted any evidence to rebut the prima facie showing.

Additionally, the name of the Respondent identified by the Registrar does not resemble the Domain Name and the email address for the Respondent does not resemble the Domain Name, which corroborate that the Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name and the Respondent failed to provide any evidence of an actual or a planned bona fide commercial use, a noncommercial use, or a fair use of the Domain Name, or even to respond to the Complaint.

More importantly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has proven that the Respondent impersonated a never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.13.1. Accordingly, the Panel concludes that the Complainant has proven the second element: the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name.

Complainant employee in a fraudulent attempt to misdirect payment of its invoices to the Respondent.
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Respondent impersonated a Complainant employee in an attempt to perpetrate a fraud by misdirecting the payment of the Complainant’s invoices to the Respondent, which is per se illegal activity and a bad faith use of the Domain Name. WIPO Overview 3.0, sections 3.1.4 and 3.4. This finding compels the Panel’s

conclusion that the Respondent (1) intentionally registered the Domain Name in bad faith to impersonate the proven the third element: the Respondent registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith.

Complainant and target its clients and (2) used it in bad faith to impersonate the Complainant and target its
clients. WIPO Overview 3.0, sections 3.1.4, and 3.4. The Panel’s findings that the Respondent engaged in
typosquatting and failed to submit a response to the Complaint support the conclusion of 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 Domain Name <kimlleyhorn.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

/A. Justin Ourso III/
A. Justin Ourso III
Panelist
Date: November 1, 2024