Pryor Cashman LLP v Rob REhunut, Carolina Rodrigues, Fundacion

WIPO Case No. D2023-4162

ARBITRATION

AND

MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Pryor Cashman LLP v. Rob REhunut, Carolina Rodrigues, Fundacion
Comercio Electronico

Case No. D2023-4162

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Pryor Cashman LLP, United States of America (“United States”), internally represented.

The Respondents are Rob REhunut, Netherlands, and Carolina Rodrigues, Fundacion Comercio

Electronico, Panama.

2. The Domain Names and Registrars

The disputed domain name <prorcashman.com> is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “First

Registrar”).

The disputed domain name <pryorscashman.com> is registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the “Second

Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on October 5, 2023. On October 6, 2023, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrars a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On October 6, 2023, the First and Second Registrars transmitted by email to the Center their verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain names which differed from the named Respondents (Redacted for Privacy, Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf, and Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on October 11, 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 amended Complaint on October 12, 2023.

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”).

page 2

In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondents of the
Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on October 18, 2023. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph
5, the due date for Response was November 7, 2023. The Respondents did not submit any response.

Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondents’ default on November 8, 2023.

The Center appointed Edoardo Fano as the sole panelist in this matter on November 17, 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.

The Panel has not received any requests from the Complainant or the Respondents regarding further submissions, waivers or extensions of deadlines, and the Panel has not found it necessary to request any further information from the Parties.

Having reviewed the communication records in the case file provided by the Center, the Panel finds that the Center has discharged its responsibility under the Rules, paragraph 2(a), “to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to [the] Respondent”. Therefore, the Panel shall issue its Decision based upon the Complaint, the Policy, the Rules and the Supplemental Rules and without the benefit of a response from the Respondents.

The language of the proceeding is English, being the language of the Registration Agreements, as per paragraph 11(a) of the Rules.

4. Factual Background

The Complainant is Pryor Cashman LLP, a United States law firm owning the following trademark registration for PRYOR CASHMAN:

- United States Trademark Registration No. 3,834,912 for PRYOR CASHMAN, registered on
August 17, 2010.

The Complainant also operates on the Internet, “ being its official website.

The Complainant provided evidence in support of the above.

According to the WhoIs records, the disputed domain names were both registered on September 12, 2023, and they both resolve to parking pages with pay-per-click (“PPC”) links.

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 names.

Notably, the Complainant states that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to its trademark only differences being the addition/deletion of letters, in an intent of deliberate typosquatting.

Further to section 6.1 below, the Complainant argues that the disputed domain names are under common control and thus addresses the Respondents in the singular. The Complainant asserts that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names since it has not been authorized by the Complainant to register the disputed domain names or to use its trademark within the

page 3

disputed domain names, it is not commonly known by the disputed domain names and it is not making either
a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain
names. The disputed domain names resolve to parking pages with PPC links.

The Complainant submits that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain names in bad faith, since the Complainant’s trademark PRYOR CASHMAN is well-known as a law firm. Therefore, the Respondent targeted the Complainant’s trademark at the time of registration of the disputed domain names and the Complainant contends that, by resolving to parking pages with PPC links, the use of the disputed domain names to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent’s websites, creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s websites, qualifies as bad faith registration and use.

Finally, the Complainant suspects that the Respondent might also use the disputed domain names in connection with phishing or fraudulent email communications.

B. Respondents

The Respondents have made no reply to the Complainant’s contentions and are in default. In reference to paragraphs 5(f) and 14 of the Rules, no exceptional circumstances explaining the default have been put forward or are apparent from the record.

A respondent is not obliged to participate in a proceeding under the Policy, but if it fails to do so, reasonable facts asserted by a complainant may be taken as true, and appropriate inferences, in accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, may be drawn. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 4.3.

6. Discussion and Findings

6.1 Procedural issue - Consolidation of Multiple Respondents

The Complainant has requested consolidation of the Respondents and stated that the disputed domain
names belong to the same person or organization. No objection to this request was made by the
Respondents.

Pursuant to the WIPO Overview 3.0, section 4.11.2, “[w]here a complaint is filed against multiple respondents, panels look at whether (i) the domain names or corresponding websites are subject to common control, and (ii) the consolidation would be fair and equitable to all parties. Procedural efficiency would also underpin panel consideration of such a consolidation scenario”. The Panel may consider a range of factors to determine whether consolidation is appropriate, such as examining relevant registrant contact information, and any naming patterns in the disputed domain names, or other evidence of respondent affiliation that indicate common control of the disputed domain names.

The Panel notes that all the disputed domain names follow the same naming pattern (both of them being misspelled versions of the Complainant’s trademark PRYOR CASHMAN), they have been registered on the same date, and they both resolve to parking pages with PPC links. The Panel finds that there is plausible evidence that the disputed domain names are subject to common control, and that it would be procedurally efficient, fair, and equitable to all Parties to accept the Complainant’s consolidation request. The Panel further notes that the Respondents did not object to the consolidation request. The Panel therefore accepts the Complainant’s consolidation request. Hereinafter, the Panel will refer to the Respondents in the singular, i.e., “the Respondent”.

page 4

6.2 Substantive Issues

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy lists three elements, which the Complainant must satisfy in order to succeed:

(i) the disputed domain names are 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 disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith.

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 names. 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 that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the trademark PRYOR
CASHMAN, by adding/deleting letters.

The Panel notes that this is a typical case of a deliberate misspelling of a mark (so-called “typosquatting”), by adding, deleting, substituting or reversing the order of letters in a mark, where numerous UDRP panels in the past have found confusing similarity to be present. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.9.

It is also well accepted that a generic Top-Level Domain, in this case “.com”, is typically ignored when assessing the similarity between a trademark and a domain name. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.11.1.

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.

While the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, UDRP panels have
recognized that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the
often impossible 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. 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 present record, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. 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 names such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. The disputed domain names resolve to parking pages with PPC links. The use of a disputed domain name to host a parked page comprising PPC links does not represent a bona fide offering where such links compete with or capitalize on the reputation and goodwill of the Complainant’s trademark. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.9.

page 5

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.

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, regarding the registration in bad faith of the disputed domain names, the reputation of the Complainant’s trademark PRYOR CASHMAN as a law firm is clearly established, and the Panel finds that the Respondent likely knew of the Complainant and deliberately registered the confusingly similar

disputed domain names, both of them being misspelled versions of the Complainant’s trademark PRYOR
CASHMAN.

As regards the use in bad faith of the disputed domain names, the Panel notes that the Respondent is trying to attract Internet users to its websites by creating likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademarks as to the disputed domain names’ source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement.

The above suggests to the Panel that the Respondent intentionally registered and is using the disputed
domain names in order both to disrupt the Complainant’s business, in accordance with paragraph 4(b)(iii) of
the Policy, and to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its websites in accordance with

paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.

Finally, noting the nature of the disputed domain names (being both of them misspelled versions of the deems that there is a risk that the disputed domain names could be used for phishing activities.

Based on the available record, the Panel finds the third element of the Policy has been established.

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 names <prorcashman.com> and <pryorscashman.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Edoardo Fano/
Edoardo Fano
Sole Panelist
Date: November 23, 2023