The Complainant is Jones Lang LaSalle IP, Inc., United States of America (“United States”), represented by CSC Digital Brand Services AB, Sweden.
The Respondent is Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC, United States / Name Redacted1.
The disputed domain name <joneslanqlasalle.com> is registered with Wild West Domains, LLC (the “Registrar”).
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 10, 2019. On September 10, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On September 12, 2019, 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 and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on September 13, 2019 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. On the same day, the Center also notified the Complainant regarding the Registrar information. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on September 18, 2019.
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 September 19, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was October 9, 2019. On October 2, 2019, the Center received an email communication from [Name Redacted] regarding identification of the Respondent. On October 4, 2019, the Center received another email communication from [Name Redacted] to which it replied. No further communications from [Name Redacted] were received by the Center and no substantive Response was filed. On October 11, 2019, the Center informed the Parties that it would proceed to appoint the Panel.
The Center appointed William F. Hamilton as the sole panelist in this matter on October 22, 2019. 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.
Jones Lang LaSalle IP, Inc. (the “Complainant”), is the owner of numerous trademark registrations for JONES LANG LASALLE (the “Mark”) in the United States and other jurisdictions. These registrations include, but are not limited to, United States Trademark Registration No. 2616175 (registered September 10, 2002); European Union Trademark Registration No. 001126291 (registered June 13, 2000); and European Union Trademark Registration No. 001126382 (registered June 13, 2000).
The Complainant is an internationally recognized leader in real estate investment and management services. The Complainant serves clients in over 80 countries from more than 300 corporate offices worldwide with over 90,000 employees. The Complainant is the owner of numerous domain names incorporating the Mark including <joneslanglasalle.com>.
The disputed domain name was registered on June 20, 2016. At the time of filing of the Complaint, the disputed domain name did not resolve to an active website. It is currently inactive.
The Complainant asserts that the disputed domain is confusingly similar to the Mark because the disputed domain name is composed of the Complainant’s exact Mark the letter “g” is changed to the visually similar letter “q”.
The Complainant asserts the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Mark because the Respondent was not authorized by the Complainant to use the Mark, the Respondent is not known by the Mark, and the Respondent has not conducted any bona fide commercial business under the Mark.
The Complainant further asserts the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith because (1) the Mark is well known and would have easily been notice in a due diligence Internet check before registering the disputed domain name, (2) only one letter of the Mark was changed to compose the disputed domain name, (3) the disputed domain name was registered utilizing a privacy shield, (4) the letter “q” in the disputed domain name is visually similar to the letter “g” in the Mark, and (5) the Respondent never answered the Complainant’s cease and desist communication.
The Respondent did not substantively respond to the Complaint. The Center did receive emails from a person identifying herself as [Name Redacted] who denied registering the disputed domain name and stated that her name was fraudulently used to register the disputed domain name.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s Mark.
The disputed domain adopts the Mark in its entirety except for changing the Mark’s letter “g” to the visually similar letter “q”. Virgin Enterprises Limited v. Jesse Brown, WIPO Case No. D2016-2176. “A domain name which consists of a common, obvious, or intentional misspelling of a trademark is considered by panels to be confusingly similar to the relevant mark for the purposes of the first element.” WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.9. Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s Mark.
The Complainant has met its burden of proof under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
The Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Mark or the disputed domain name.
The Complainant has disavowed providing the Respondent with any license or authority to use the Mark or the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not provided any evidence that the Respondent is known by the Mark or the disputed domain name. Indeed, quite to the contrary, the only response the Center has received is from one [Name Redacted] who asserts her name and her former employer’s address were fraudulently used by whomever registered the disputed domain name. Moreover, the disputed domain name redirects Internet users to a website that resolves to a blank page which of itself is evidence of lack of rights or legitimate interests in the Mark or the disputed domain name. Philip Morris USA Inc. v. Muhammad Faisal, WIPO Case No. D2016-0621 (citing to Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallow, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003, and Ladbroke Group Plc v. Sonoma International LDC, WIPO Case No. D2002-0131).
The Complainant has met its burden of proof under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
The single letter change in the disputed domain name from the Mark is telling. To compose the disputed domain name, the Respondent misappropriated the Complainant’s entire Mark replacing a single letter “g” in the Mark with the visually similar character “q”. A clear inference may be drawn that the Respondent had knowledge of the Complainant’s Mark and intentionally created the confusingly similar disputed domain name.
Moreover, a minimal Internet search would have revealed the Complainant’s Mark. Indeed, it is “not possible to conceive of a plausible situation in which the Respondent would have been unaware” of the Complainant’s brand when the disputed domain name was registered. Telstra Corporation Limited. v. Nuclear Marshmallows, supra.
The fact that the disputed domain name resolves to an inactive website does not prevent a finding of bad faith under the circumstances of this case where bad faith is apparent. Clerical Medical Investment Group Limited v. Clericalmedical.com (Clerical & Medical Services Agency), WIPO Case No. D2000-1228 (“holding an infringing domain name without active use, can constitute use in bad faith”).
Finally, the Panel notes that the Complainant’s cease and desist communication to the Respondent went unanswered and that the nominal Respondent, [Name Redacted], disavows any knowledge of the disputed domain name registration. Thus, assuming the truth of [Name Redacted’s] statements, an unknown person misappropriated her identity as well as the Complainant’s Mark when registering the disputed domain name.
The Complainant has met its burden of proof under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
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 <joneslanqlasalle.com> be transferred to the Complainant.
William F. Hamilton
Date: November 3, 2019
1 The Respondent appears to have used the name and contact details of third parties when registering the disputed domain name. In light of the potential 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.
Stay updated! Get new cases and decisions by daily email.