Ecolabusa.com

The timeline behind ecolabusa.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.

DECISION Ecolab USA Inc. v. Doug NA Claim Number: FA1908001855585 PARTIES Complainant is Ecolab USA Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Elizabeth M. Stafki, Texas, USA. Respondent is Doug NA (“Respondent”), Michigan, USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <ecolabusa.com>, registered with Wild West Domains, LLC. PANEL The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding. Richard Hill as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on August 2, 2019; the Forum received payment on August 2, 2019. On August 5, 2019, Wild West Domains, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <ecolabusa.com> domain name is registered with Wild West Domains, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Wild West Domains, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Wild West Domains, LLC registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”). On August 6, 2019, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 26, 2019 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@ecolabusa.com. Also on August 6, 2019, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts. Having received no response from Respondent, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On August 28, 2019, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Richard Hill as Panelist. Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent. RELIEF SOUGHT Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Complainant states that it is the global leader in water, hygiene, and energy technologies and services that protect people and vital resources. Complainant’s 49,000 associates work to deliver comprehensive solutions, data-driven insights and on-site service to promote safe food, maintain clean environments, optimize water and energy use, and improve operational efficiencies for customers in the food, healthcare, energy, hospitality and industrial markets in more than 170 countries. Many of the world’s most recognizable brands rely on Complainant to help ensure operational efficiencies, product integrity and brand reputation. Complainant has rights in the ECOLAB mark based upon the registration in the United States in 1989. Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its mark as it incorporates the mark in its entirety and merely adds the geographic term “usa” and the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”). Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position. According to Complainant, Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not permitted or licensed to use Complainant’s ECOLAB mark and is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Respondent is not using the disputed domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or for a legitimate non-commercial or fair use. Rather, Respondent uses the disputed domain name to impersonate Complainant in furtherance of a fraudulent, phishing scheme. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position. Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent attempts to disrupt Complainant’s business by impersonating Complainant as part of an e-mail phishing scheme. Moreover, Respondent used a privacy service to conceal its identity. Finally, Respondent had actual knowledge or constructive notice of Complainant’s mark prior to registering the disputed domain name. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant owns the mark ECOLAB and uses it to market water, hygiene, and energy technologies and services. Complainant’s rights in its mark dates back to 1989. The disputed domain name was registered in 2019. Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark. The disputed domain name is used to send fraudulent phishing e-mails which display Complainant’s mark and logo. DISCUSSION Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable." Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred: (1) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and (2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and (3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at ¶ 4.3; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (“Because Complainant did not produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations [. . .] the Panel finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint”). Identical and/or Confusingly Similar The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant’s mark in its entirety and merely adds the geographic term “USA” and a gTLD to the mark. Additions of a geographic term and a gTLD to a complainant’s mark does not negate any confusing similarity between a disputed domain name and mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Doosan Corporation v. philippe champain, FA 1636675 (Forum Oct. 13, 2015) (finding that geographic designations or terms descriptive of a complainant’s business operations do not remove a domain name from the realm of confusing similarity.); see also Trip Network Inc. v. Alviera, FA 914943 (Forum Mar. 27, 2007) (concluding that the affixation of a gTLD to a domain name is irrelevant to a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis). Therefore, the Panel finds that the <ecolabusa.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ECOLAB mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name: where a response is lacking, WHOIS information can support a finding that a respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Alaska Air Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines v. Song Bin, FA1408001574905 (Forum Sept. 17, 2014) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name as demonstrated by the WHOIS information and based on the fact that the complainant had not licensed or authorized the respondent to use its ALASKA AIRLINES mark.). Here, the WHOIS information of record identifies registrant as “Doug NA.” The Panel therefore finds under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) that Respondent has not been commonly known by the disputed domain name. Respondent uses the disputed domain name to attempt to impersonate Complainant as part of a fraudulent scheme. Specifically, Respondent uses an e-mail address associated with the disputed domain name to impersonate a former executive of Complainant and sends phishing e-mails to Complainant’s customers that are designed to solicit payment information under false pretenses. The e-mails display Complainant’s mark and logo. Use of an e-mail address associated with the disputed domain name to pass off as a complainant in furtherance of phishing is not indicative of rights or legitimate interests in the name per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Abbvie, Inc. v. James Bulow, FA 1701075 (Forum Nov. 30, 2016) (“Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to pose as Complainant’s CEO by means of email addresses at the confusingly similar domain name in an attempt to determine Complainant’s ability to process a transfer. Using the domain name in this manner is neither a bona fide offering of goods and services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)”). Thus, the Panel may finds that Respondent’s use of the domain name is neither a bona fide offering of goods and services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). Further, the Panel finds that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Respondent (who did not reply to Complainant’s contentions) has not presented any plausible explanation for its use of Complainant’s mark. In accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel shall draw such inferences from Respondent’s failure to reply as it considers appropriate. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent did not have a legitimate use in mind when registering the disputed domain name. Indeed, as already noted, Respondent is attempting to impersonate Complainant as part of an e-mail phishing scheme, presumably for commercial gain. Use of a domain name to impersonate a complainant in furtherance of a fraudulent scheme may constitute bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and/or (iv). See Abbvie, Inc. v. James Bulow, FA 1701075 (Forum Nov. 30, 2016) (“Respondent uses the <abbuie.com> domain name to impersonate Complainant’s CEO. Such use is undeniably disruptive to Complainant’s business and demonstrates bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii), and/or Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)”); see also Monsanto Co. v. Decepticons, FA 101536 (Forum Dec. 18, 2001) (finding that the respondent's use of <monsantos.com> to misrepresent itself as the complainant and to provide misleading information to the public supported a finding of bad faith). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith per Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and/or (iv). Further, Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s mark: the fraudulent phishing e-mails display Complainant’s mark and logo. While constructive notice is insufficient to demonstrate bad faith, actual knowledge of a complainant’s rights in a mark prior to registration may be evidence of bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Custom Modular Direct LLC v. Custom Modular Homes Inc., FA 1140580 (Forum Apr. 8, 2008) (“There is no place for constructive notice under the Policy.”); see also Orbitz Worldwide, LLC v. Domain Librarian, FA 1535826 (Forum Feb. 6, 2014) (“The Panel notes that although the UDRP does not recognize ‘constructive notice’ as sufficient grounds for finding Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) bad faith, the Panel here finds actual knowledge through the name used for the domain and the use made of it.”); see also Univision Comm'cns Inc. v. Norte, FA 1000079 (Forum Aug. 16, 2007) (rejecting the respondent's contention that it did not register the disputed domain name in bad faith since the panel found that the respondent had knowledge of the complainant's rights in the UNIVISION mark when registering the disputed domain name). The Panel finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the mark prior to Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name and that this constitutes bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). DECISION Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED. Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <ecolabusa.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Richard Hill, Panelist Dated: August 28, 2019 Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page. Click Here to return to our Home Page

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