Westmore · UDRP DecisionJoneslanglassale.com
The Panel ordered transfer of <joneslanglassale.com>. It found the domain to be a clear typosquatting variant of the JONES LANG LASALLE marks, differing by the misspelling of “LaSalle” as “Lassale.” The Respondent lacked rights or legitimate interests because its use for a parking website containing third-party links, including links to competitors, was commercial and not bona fide. Bad faith was established from the obvious targeting of the distinctive marks, diversion of traffic for likely commercial gain, and the offer to sell the domain.
The timeline behind joneslanglassale.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 joneslanglassale.com — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:
The decision illustrates a straightforward typosquatting fact pattern in which a minor transposition within a distinctive multi-word mark, combined with monetized parking links and an offer for sale, supported findings on all three UDRP elements. The same typo evidence served both the confusing-similarity analysis and the inference that the Respondent knowingly targeted the Complainant when registering the domain.
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 Jones Lang LaSalle IP, Inc. v. Online Resource, Online Resource Management Ltd. Case No. D2016-1409 1. The Parties The Complainant is Jones Lang LaSalle IP, Inc. of Chicago, Illinois, United States of America, represented by CSC Digital Brand Services AB, Sweden. The Respondent is Online Resource, Online Resource Management Ltd. of Grand Cayman, overseas territory of United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <joneslanglassale.com> is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 11, 2016. On July 11, 2016, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On July 12, 2016 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 July 13, 2016 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 13, 2016. 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 paragraphs 2 and 4 of the Rules, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on July 22, 2016. In accordance with paragraph 5 of the Rules, the due date for Response was August 11, 2016. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on August 12, 2016. The Center appointed Brigitte Joppich as the sole panelist in this matter on August 19, 2016. 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 paragraph 7 of the Rules. 4. Factual Background The Complainant is a professional services and investment management firm specializing in real estate. It was formed by the merger of Jones Lang Wootton and LaSalle Partners in 1999 and is a publically traded company which, in 2015, reported annual fee revenues of USD 5.2 billion with gross revenues of USD 6.0 billion. The Complainant is the owner of trademark registrations across various jurisdictions, inter alia US trademark registration no. 2593380 JONES LANG LASALLE, registered on July 16, 2002 for services in classes 36 and 37, and European Union trademark registration no. 001126291 JONES LANG LASALLE, registered on June 13, 2000 for services in classes 36, 37 and 42 (the “JONES LANG LASALLE Marks”). In addition, the Complainant owns numerous domain names which incorporate the Complainant’s trademarks, inter alia <jll.com> and <joneslanglasalle.com>, and has acquired the rights to use the dot-jll (.jll) and dot-lasalle (.lasalle) top level domain names. The disputed domain name was registered on January 11, 2016 and has been used to redirect Internet users to a website which featured links to third-party websites, some of which directly competed with the Complainant’s business. In addition, the disputed domain name has been offered for sale. The Complainant sent a cease and desist letter to the Respondent prior to filing the Complaint in the present proceeding, which remained unanswered. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that each of the three elements specified in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is given in the present case. (1) The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the JONES LANG LASALLE Marks as the disputed domain name is a purposeful misspelling of the JONES LANG LASALLE Marks and as the top-level-domain does not affect the disputed domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar. (2) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name as the Respondent is not sponsored by or affiliated with the Complainant in any way, as the Complainant has not given the Respondent permission to use the JONES LANG LASALLE Marks in any manner, as the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and as the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to redirect Internet users to a website which features links to third-party websites, some of which directly compete with the Complainant’s business, is no bona fide use under the Policy and no legitimate noncommercial or fair use. (3) The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. With regard to bad faith registration, the Complainant states that the disputed domain name is a typo of the Complainant’s trademark and, therefore, the Respondent has demonstrated a knowledge of and familiarity with the Complainant’s brand and business. As to bad faith use, the Complainant argues that registering a domain name to take advantage of traffic generated by typing errors committed by a third party’s customers, as in the present case, is evidence of bad faith registration and use. In addition, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has “intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [the Respondent’s] website… by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the website or location of a product or service on [the Respondent’s] website or location,” and that the Respondent is currently offering to sell the disputed domain name, which constitutes bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(i) of the Policy. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that each of the following three elements is present: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark; and (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and (iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s well established JONES LANG LASALLE Marks by only changing the word “Lasalle” to “Lassale”. This is a clear case of typosquatting and the disputed domain name is nearly identical and confusingly similar to the JONES LANG LASALLE Marks. Therefore, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Even though the Policy requires the complainant to prove that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, it is the consensus view among UDRP panels that the complainant has to make only a prima facie case to fulfill the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. As a result, the burden of coming forward with evidence of the respondent’s rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name will then shift to the respondent. The Complainant has substantiated that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Panel finds that the Complainant has fulfilled its obligations under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. The Respondent did not deny these assertions in any way and therefore failed to prove any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Based on the evidence before the Panel, the Panel cannot find any rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent either. The Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to redirect Internet users to a website which featured links to third-party websites, some of which directly competed with the Complainant’s business, is commercial use and not bona fide under the Policy. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has proven that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name under paragraphs 4(a)(ii) and 4(c) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel is satisfied that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant and its rights in the JONES LANG LASALLE Marks as such marks are highly distinctive and as the disputed domain name obviously reflects a typo of the JONES LANG LASALLE Marks, which indicates that the disputed domain name was registered having the Complainant and its trademarks in mind. As to bad faith use, by using the disputed domain name in connection with a parking website the Respondent was, in all likelihood, trying to divert traffic intended for the Complainant’s website to its own for commercial gain as set out under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. Furthermore, the Respondent is currently offering to sell the disputed domain name, which constitutes bad faith use under paragraph 4(b)(i) of the Policy. The Panel is therefore satisfied that the Respondent also used the disputed domain name in bad faith. Consequently, the Panel finds that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith and that the Complainant satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. 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 <joneslanglassale.com> be transferred to the Complainant. Brigitte Joppich Sole Panelist Date: September 1, 2016
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around joneslanglassale.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.