Moog Inc. v Patrick Overton

WIPO Case No. D2025-0350

ARBITRATION

AND

MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Moog Inc. v. Patrick Overton

Case No. D2025-0350

1. The Parties

Complainant is Moog Inc., United States of America (“United States”), represented by CSC Digital Brand

Services Group AB, Sweden.

Respondent is Patrick Overton, United States.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <careers-moog.com> is registered with NameSilo, LLC (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 28, 2025. On January 29, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On January 29, 2025, 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 (Domain Administrator, See PrivacyGuardian.org) and contact information in the Complaint.

The Center sent an email communication to Complainant on January 30, 2025, providing the registrant and
contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the

Complaint. Complainant filed an amended Complaint on January 31, 2025.

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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on January 31, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was February 20, 2025. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the

Center notified Respondent’s default on February 21, 2025.

page 2

The Center appointed Lorelei Ritchie as the sole panelist in this matter on March 4, 2025. 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 multinational company based in the United States. For many decades prior to the
registration of the disputed domain name, Complainant has offered technology components in various
sectors under the mark MOOG. In this regard, Complainant is the owner of several registrations for the
MOOG mark. These include, among others, United States Registration No. 893181 (registered June 23,
1970) and International Registration No. 402981 (registered November 20, 1973).

Complainant also owns registrations for various domain names that incorporate its MOOG mark. These include <moog.com> (registered December 17, 1990) and <moog.careers> (registered November 5, 2018), which Complainant uses to communicate with prospective consumers and recruits online.

The disputed domain name was registered on January 15, 2025. Although the disputed domain name does not appear to resolve to an active website, Respondent has used it to set up an email address to impersonate Complainant, targeting potential job recruits. Respondent has no affiliation with Complainant, nor any license to use its marks.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

Complainant contends that (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s
trademarks; (ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and (iii)
Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.

Specifically, Complainant contends that it owns rights to the MOOG mark which Complainant has used for decades in offering technology components in various sectors including for military and commercial aircraft as well as for space and defense, and for which Complainant has recorded over USD 3.6 billion in sales in Fiscal Year 2024 alone.

Complainant contends that Respondent has incorporated in full Complainant’s MOOG mark into the disputed domain name, with only the addition of a non-source-identifying hyphen and the term “careers.” Complainant further contends that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and rather has registered and is using it in bad faith, having simply acquired the disputed domain name for

Respondent’s own commercial gain. In particular, Complainant asserts that Respondent has set up an email address associated with the disputed domain name, which Respondent has used in an attempt to impersonate Complainant, sending phishing emails to potential recruits of Complainant, seeking sensitive personal and financial information, whereas Complainant hosts its own job recruitment postings via Complainant’s website at “

B. Respondent

Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions.

page 3

6. Discussion and Findings

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 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. Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark, MOOG, for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1. Although the addition of other terms (here, a hyphen and the term “careers”) may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such terms does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and Complainant’s mark for purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8.

The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which

Complainant has rights in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which 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 Complainant has established a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent has not rebutted 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. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity, including phishing activity as
here, can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.13.1.

The Panel finds that Complainant has provided sufficient evidence of Respondent’s lack of “rights or legitimate interests” in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy which Respondent has not rebutted.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

There are several ways that a complainant can demonstrate that a domain name was registered and used in bad faith. Respondent provided false contact information to the Registrar, with a contact address found to be undeliverable by package carrier DHL. Furthermore, panels have held that the use of a domain name for

WIPO Overview 3.0

illegal activity constitutes bad faith. , section 3.4. As noted in section 4, above, used in a phishing attempt to impersonate Complainant with potential job recruits.

Therefore, the Panel finds sufficient evidence that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.

page 4

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 <careers-moog.com> be transferred to Complainant.

/Lorelei Ritchie/
Lorelei Ritchie
Sole Panelist
Date: March 13, 2025