Kimley--horn.org

The timeline behind kimley--horn.org

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 AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. v. Nina Walzer Case No. D2026-3802 1. The Parties Complainant is Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., United States of America (“United States”), represented by Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP, United States. Respondent is Nina Walzer, United States. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <kimley--horn.org> is registered with Dynadot Inc (“Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (“Center”) on August 25, 2026. On August 26, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On August 27, 2026, Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name that differed from that in the Complaint (e.g., the Complaint named “Dynadot Privacy Service, Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot” as Respondent). The Center sent an email communication to Complainant on August 27, 2026, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by Registrar and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amended Complaint on August 27, 2026. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“Policy”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“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 1, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 21, 2026. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on September 22, 2026. The Center appointed Debra J. Stanek as the sole panelist in this matter on September 25, 2026. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration page 2 of Impartiality and Independence as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7. 4. Factual Background Complainant is a planning, engineering, and design firm that was founded in 1967 1 . Complainant owns the following United States trademark registrations for the mark KIMLEY-HORN 2 : • Reg. No. 2,788,474 (registered December 2, 2003), for among other things engineering consultation and design services. • Reg. No. 4,685,771 (registered February 10, 2015), a stylized version that includes three arrow symbols between the two terms making up the mark, for among other things engineering consultation and design services. The disputed domain name was registered on July 28, 2026. At the time of this Decision, it does not resolve to an active website. However, the Complaint, supported by evidence, indicates that Respondent has used the disputed domain name in email addresses used to send messages purporting to be from Complainant. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain name. Notably: • The disputed domain name is virtually identical to Complainant’s mark; it adds a second hyphen between the terms “kimley” and “horn.” • Complainant does not believe that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name and has not authorized the use of the KIMLEY-HORN mark by Respondent. • Respondent has used the disputed domain name to impersonate Complainant. Respondent sent an email message to one of Complainant’s clients from an “[.]@kimley--horn.org” email address purporting to be from a “project administrator” requesting assistance regarding “ACH/EFT forms.” B. Respondent Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings To prevail under the Policy a complainant must prove, as to the domain name at issue, that: (a) it is identical or confusingly similar to a mark in which the complainant has rights; (b) respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect to it; and (c) it has been registered and is being used in bad faith. Policy, paragraph 4(a). A respondent’s failure to respond does not automatically result in a finding for the complainant; the complainant continues to have the burden of establishing each element. Rules, paragraphs 5(f) and 14(a); see also WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions 1 The List of Annexes erroneously states that Annex 2 consists of printouts of Complainant’s “Services Brochure” and “LinkedIn page.” Instead, Complainant has provided a Wikipedia page. 2 While the Complaint mentions other registrations, the Panel cites only those for which the certificates have been provided. See Rules, para. 3(b)(xiv) requiring a copy of “any trademark or service mark registration upon which the complaint relies.” page 3 (“WIPO Overview 3.1”), section 4.3. The Panel may, however, draw appropriate inferences from the default. See Rules, paragraph 14(b). The Panel determines that “Nina Walzer” is the appropriate Respondent. See WIPO Overview 3.1, section 4.4.5 (in cases involving a privacy service, the panel has discretion to determine appropriate respondent). 3 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 Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.2.1. The disputed domain name is not identical to Complainant’s mark; however, the only difference is the addition of a second hyphen between “kimley” and “horn.” Complainant’s KIMLEY-HORN mark is readily recognizable. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. 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 Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name. Although the overall burden of proof in proceedings under the Policy is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the difficult 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 (although the burden of proof remains on the complainant). If the respondent fails to come forward with relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.1. The Panel finds Complainant has established a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent has not rebutted Complainant’s prima facie showing and has not come forward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. Further, Complainant has provided credible evidence that Respondent used the disputed domain name to pass herself off as an employee of Complainant, apparently in a scheme to fraudulently redirect payments. Consistent with determinations by other panels, the Panel finds that this use of the disputed domain name does not confer rights or legitimate interests on Respondent. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.13.1. The Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established. 3 Complainant requested that Respondent’s name be redacted because it suspects that Respondent is using a “stolen identity.” However, without more (e.g., the name corresponds to the name of an employee of Complainant or to an unrelated third party), the Panel does not find that this is an exceptional case warranting an exception to the requirement that the Decision be published under Rules, para. 16(b). page 4 C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out a list of circumstances that may indicate that a domain name was registered and used in bad faith for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. The list is not exhaustive; other circumstances may be relevant. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.2.1. Complainant’s evidence shows: Complainant’s rights in its KIMLEY-HORN mark long predate registration of the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name simply adds an extra hyphen to Complainant’s mark. Respondent used an email address incorporating the disputed domain name for messages purporting to be from one of Complainant’s employees as part of a scheme to defraud. Respondent clearly knew of Complainant and Complainant’s mark and intended that the third party believe Respondent’s email communications were from Complainant. Under these circumstances, the Panel finds Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith under the Policy. 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 name <kimley--horn.org> be transferred to Complainant. /Debra J. Stanek/ Debra J. Stanek Sole Panelist Date: October 9, 2026

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