Steven-bolton.com

The timeline behind steven-bolton.com

Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.

Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.

ARBITRATION AN D MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Stevens & Bolton LLP v. xplanmoney gp Case No. D2023-3802 1. The Parties Complainant is Stevens & Bolton LLP, United Kingdom, represented internally. Respondent is xplanmoney gp, United States of America. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name is <steven-bolton.com> which is registered with Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Reg istrar.eu. (the “Reg istrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 12, 2023. On September 12, 2023, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request f or registrar verif ication in connection with the disputed domain name. On September 13, 2023, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which dif f ered f rom the named Respondent (REDACTED FOR PRIVACY) and contact inf ormation in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to Complainant on September 18, 2023, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on September 18, 2023. The Center verif ied that the Complaint together with the amendment to the Complaint satisf ied the f ormal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” o r “UDRP”), the Rules f or Unif orm Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules f or Unif orm 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 September 20, 2023. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date f or Response was October 10, 2023. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notif ied Respondent’s def ault on October 17, 2023. page 2 The Center appointed Gerardo Saavedra as the sole panelist in this matter on October 23, 2023. This Panel f inds that it was properly constituted. This 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 British law f irm. Complainant has rights over the STEVENS & BOLTON mark f or which it holds British registration No. UK00913713921 in classes 35, 41, and 45, registered on August 17, 2015. Complainant is the registrant of the domain name <stevens-bolton.com>, created on January 8, 2001. The disputed domain name was registered on August 28, 2023. Bef ore the Complaint was f iled, the disputed domain name resolved to a hosting landing web page and was used to send f raudulent emails. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Complainant’s assertions may be summarized as f ollows. Complainant is an independent multi-service law firm with around 150 lawyers. Complainant has signif icant goodwill and reputation in the name Stevens & Bolton, which has been used by Complainant since 1948. Complainant owns various mark registrations f or STEVENS & BOLTON and operates a website at “www.stevens-bolton.com”. The disputed domain name is conf usingly similar to Complainant’s STEVENS & BOLTON mark as it is identical, aside f rom the missing “s” at the end of the word “steven”. The disputed domain name is also almost identical to Complainant’s own domain name, which is used for its employees’ email addresses (i.e., “[name]@stevens-bolton.com”). Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. Respondent is not known to Complainant, and there is no evidence that Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name. There is currently no active website being operated at the disputed domain name, and there is no evidence of Respondent’s use of, or demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services. The disputed domain name has been used to send false/fraudulent emails, purporting to be from individuals within Complainant’s business. Just the day after the registration of the disputed domain name a number of e-mails were sent to a Complainant’s client, impersonating two employees of Complainant. 0F 1 Respondent impersonated them by sending emails on August 29 and 30, 2023, using email addresses linked to the disputed domain name (i.e., “[__]@steven-bolton.com”) which mirrors the same email addresses used by Complainant, save for the missing “s” at the end of the word “steven”. After Respondent provided said client with third-party bank account details, the client responded with follow up questions and even negotiated a reduction in the invoice amount. Afterwards the client confirmed that they would transf er the money to the third-party bank account, but the client happened to copy in a Complainant’s employee using his correct 1 Attached to the Complaint are copies of such email communications from/to email addresses associated with the disputed domain name that replicate the names of such Complainant’s employees as they appear in their <stevens-bolton.com> email addresses. page 3 Complainant’s email address rather than the f raudulent email account, and said employee was able to identif y the f raudulent activity so could f ortunately intercept the transaction bef ore the money was transf erred. The disputed domain name was self-evidently registered in bad faith. Given the strength of Complainant’s rights in the name Stevens & Bolton and the above f acts, Respondent’s intention was clearly to use the disputed domain name to send fraudulent emails, purporting to be f rom individuals within Complainant’s organization with the intention of damaging Complainant’s business and/or deriving a f raudulent f inancial benefit. Complainant requests that the disputed domain name be transf erred to Complainant. B. Respondent Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs the Panel to “decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable”. The lack of response from Respondent does not automatically result in a f avorable decision for Complainant (see section 4.3 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0 ”)). The burden for Complainant, under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, is to show: (i) that the disputed domain name is identical or conf usingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; (ii) that 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 f aith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar It is undisputed that Complainant has rights over the STEVENS & BOLTON mark. Since the addition of a generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) i.e., “.com” in a domain name is technically required, it is well established that such element may be disregarded where assessing whether a domain name is identical or conf usingly similar to a mark. Taking into account the af oresaid, it is clear that the disputed domain name almost identically reproduces the STEVENS & BOLTON mark, omitting its second “s” letter and replacing the ampersand sign with an hyphen. This Panel considers that such mark is recognizable in the disputed domain name and that said minor d ifferences in the disputed domain name do not avoid a f inding of conf using similarity with said mark (see sections 1.7 and 1.9 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 ). Thus, this Panel f inds that Complainant has satisf ied paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant has alleged and Respondent has failed to deny that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. There is no evidence in the case file of circumstances of the type specified in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, or of any other circumstances giving rise to a possible right to or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name by Respondent, but rather the opposite may be validly inf erred. page 4 The evidence in the file shows that the disputed domain name was used as an email address f or sending phishing email communications, conveying the impression that the sender is associated with Complainant, that is, the disputed domain name was used to try to obtain a payment by impersonating Complainant’s employees. Such use demonstrates neither a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or f air use of the disputed domain name. 1F 2 Based on the af oresaid, this Panel concludes that paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy is satisf ied. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The evidence in the case f ile clearly shows that Respondent targeted Complainant with the intention of impersonating Complainant’s employees in order to deceive a Complainant’s client through phishing emails. 2F 3 The f act that the disputed domain name incorporates almost identically Complainant’s STEVENS & BOLTON mark, coupled with the email communications sent to a Complainant’s client from an email account linked to the disputed domain name that conf usingly resembles the <stevens-bolton.com> email account of a Complainant’s employee and using such employee’s name and contact details, lead to the inevitable conclusion that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad f aith. In sum, the overall evidence indicates that Respondent’s choice of the disputed domain name was deliberate f or its confusing similarity with Complainant’s STEVENS & BOLTON mark (and Complainant’s domain name <stevens-bolton.com> that Complainant uses f or employees’ email addresses), with the intention of impersonating Complainant’s employees and to commercially benefit therefrom by deceiving Complainant’s clients through phishing emails, which denotes bad f aith. In light of all the above, this Panel f inds that Complainant has satisf ied paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. 7. Decision For the f oregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, this Panel orders that the disputed domain name <steven-bolton.com> be transf erred to Complainant. /Gerardo Saavedra/ Gerardo Saavedra Sole Panelist Date: November 6, 2023 2 See Olivetti S.p.A v. mez inc, WIPO Case No. D2015-1934: “ Respondent’s use of the Domain Name in a phishing scheme to divert customer payments from the Complainant to the Respondent did not constitute either a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name”. See Syngenta Participations AG v. Guillaume Texier, Gobain ltd, WIPO Case No. D2017-1147: “A registrant cannot acquire rights or legitimate interests by the use of a domain name as an email address from which to send phishing emails”. 3 See BinckBank N.V. v. Helo Holdings LTD, WIPO Case No. DNL2010-0014: “Respondent in the present case apparently targeted Dutch students by pretending to be the Complainant and sending them an offer from an e-mail address associated with the Domain Name [...] Phishing activities pose a severe threat to customers, trademark holders and third parties”. See Yardi Systems, Inc. v. Abm Black, WIPO Case No. D2019-0057: “Respondent is not using the disputed domain name to resolve to a web site, but rather is using it for spear phishing, employing the disputed domain name in an email address [...] This is classic bad faith registration and use”. See also section 3.4 of the WIPO Overview 3.0.

Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.