Westmore · UDRP DecisionMckinseycompanyusa.com
The Panel ordered transfer of <mckinseycompanyusa.com> to McKinsey & Company, Inc. It found the domain confusingly similar to the Complainants’ MCKINSEY marks, found no rights or legitimate interests based on the absence of authorization or legitimate use, and found bad-faith registration and use because the domain targeted the Complainants’ reputation and was apparently used to collect personal data through nonexistent job offers.
The timeline behind mckinseycompanyusa.com
Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.
Westmore reconstructs the full history behind mckinseycompanyusa.com — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:
The case illustrates how a domain closely reproducing a corporate mark can support a transfer when coupled with fake recruitment email and requests for identifying information. The decision also distinguishes an identified underlying registrant from a privacy registration service and treats the underlying registrant as the sole respondent.
Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION McKinsey & Company, Inc., McKinsey Holdings, Inc. v. Muller Daniel Case No. D2015-1111 1. The Parties The Complainants are McKinsey & Company, Inc. and McKinsey Holdings, Inc. of New York, United States of America (the “USA”), represented by Fross Zelnick Lehrman & Zissu, PC, USA. The Respondent is Muller Daniel, address unknown; with Respondent’s country being Ukraine. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <mckinseycompanyusa.com> (the “Domain Name”) is registered with OnlineNic, Inc. (the “Registrar”), USA. 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 29, 2015. On June 30, 2015, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On July 1, 2015, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on July 7, 2015 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 8, 2015 1 . 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(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on July 14, 2015. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was August 3, 2015. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on August 4, 2015. The Center appointed Gérald Page, as the sole panelist in this matter on August 17, 2015. 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 A. The Complainants The Complainants are McKinsey & Company, Inc. and its subsidiary, McKinsey Holdings, Inc. with global headquarters in New York, USA. McKinsey & Company is one of the leading global management consulting firms which has been doing business worldwide since 1926 under the family trademarks MCKINSEY that includes MCKINSEY, MCKINSEY & COMPANY or MCKINSEY & CO (hereafter “MCKINSEY Marks”). Complainants have obtained registrations of these trademarks in multiple classes, in several countries including USA (Registrations Nos 74646215 and 74645923), Germany (Registrations Nos 39523847, 39523849 and 39523850) and Ukraine (Registration No 85217). McKinsey & Company has more than one hundred offices worldwide, in particular in USA, Germany and Hong Kong, China and has two main websites “www.mckinsey.com” and “www.mckinsey.de”. As shown by Annex A of the Complaint, the Respondent has registered on November 25, 2014 the disputed Domain Name <mckinseycompanyusa.com>. On March 12, 2015 the email address […]@mckinseycompanyusa.com was used to “recruit” an applicant for a Mail & Package Manager position at McKinsey & Company. The applicant was asked to provide its personal contact details and other identifying information. Currently, visitors to the Domain Name are redirected to the Complainant’s website for Germany, “www.mckinsey.de”. B. The Respondent The Respondent is Muller Daniel. The Respondent has no license from the Complainants to use the MCKINSEY Marks. The Respondent did not file any submission or comments to the Complaint when duly notified by the Center. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainants contend, inter alia , that the three requisites of paragraph 4 (a) of the Policy are met: The Complainants contend that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the MCKINSEY Marks in which the Complainants have rights namely MCKINSEY and MCKINSEY & COMPANY, as the Domain Name consists basically of the latter minus the ampersand, plus the geographic term “USA” and the generic Top-Level Domain (gTLD) “.com”. Given the reputation and renown of the MCKINSEY Marks, Internet users are likely to assume that the Domain Name and website associated with it are owned, controlled or approved by the Complainants. The Complainants further contend that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name as the companies as well as the trademarks they hold were registered well before the registration of the Domain Name by the Respondent. The Respondent has not demonstrated or established any rights to the Domain Name or the existence of an authorization for using the Domain Name. The Respondent is unknown in an activity using the denomination “Mckinsey” and does not offer any goods or services in connection with the Domain name. The Respondent is making no legitimate use of the Domain Name as visitors are simply redirected to the German website of the Complainants. The Complainants further contend that the Respondent registered and uses the Domain Name in bad faith. The Complainant, has been well known for many years and the Respondent’s bad faith is given from the reputation of the MCKINSEY Marks and the absence of any sign of legitimacy for use by the Respondent, who does not show any rights or legitimate interests. Moreover, the Complainants allege that the Respondent uses the Domain Name and its associated email servers in order to steal identities and money from job applicants to nonexistent job offers that appear at job-search websites. The Complainants request that the Domain Name be transferred to McKinsey & Company, Inc. B. Respondent The Respondent has not filed a Response. Therefore, he has not shown or even alleged any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similarity The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s Marks, trademarks by reference to which the Complainants conduct business worldwide and in and around which the Complainants have substantial goodwill. There is no doubt that Internet users of the Domain Name will associate it with the Complainants’ marks. Therefore, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainants marks. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Respondent, through his silence, has not shown the existence of any rights or legitimate interests in respect to the Domain Name. Moreover, there is no evidence of any license or authorization to use the Domain Name. Furthermore, the Respondent is making no legitimate use of the Domain Name as the website does not have any content of its own beyond a simple redirection to the German website of the Complainants. Hence, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the Domain Name. C. Registration and Use in Bad Faith The Domain Name is clearly intended to take advantage of the Complainants’ name, reputation and Internet traffic. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Names and the Panel infers from the Respondent’s behavior that he has made no active use of the Domain Name, except a fraudulent use apparently expecting to collect personal data from job applicants for nonexistent job offers. The Panel therefore finds that the Domain Name has been registered and used in 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 <mckinseycompanyusa.com> be transferred to McKinsey & Company, Inc. Gérald Page Sole Panelist Date: September 3, 2015 1 The amended Complaint has named two Respondents: Domain ID Shield Service Co., Limited and Muller Daniel. Domain ID Shield Service Co., Limited is a privacy domain name registration service. The Panel will treat Muller Daniel as the sole Respondent (see Xtraplus Corporation v. Flawless Computers , WIPO Case No. D2007-0070 ).
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around mckinseycompanyusa.com
The decision is only the record. Westmore connects it to the cases, authorities, panelists, parties and domain evidence surrounding it.
A short, grounded explanation drawn only from this decision's record — not legal advice or a prediction.
Grounded in the Westmore record for this decision. Research/informational only — not legal advice or a prediction of any outcome.
The decision is only the beginning.
You've seen what happened. Now discover the deeper intelligence behind the case, the panelist, the parties and the authorities that matter.
Go beyond the public record: see how this case has been cited, find comparable decisions, analyze the panelist and apply the relevant authorities to your Matter.
Westmore Professional · $395/month
Research with UDRP IntelligenceWestmore AI drafts an attorney-review-ready UDRP response from your facts, grounded in the exact panel and closest precedent.
$895 one-time per matter · no subscription required. Self-help drafting aid — not legal advice.
Build your responseWestmore UDRP records draw on WIPO-indexed decisions and are provided for research and informational purposes only. Not legal advice, a clearance opinion, or a prediction of any outcome.