Keysightt.com

The timeline behind keysightt.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 Keysight Technologies v. Repossessed by Go Daddy Claim Number: FA2111001972991 PARTIES Complainant is Keysight Technologies (“Complainant”), represented by Lian Ernette of Holland & Hart LLP, Colorado, USA. Respondent is Repossessed by Go Daddy (“Respondent”), Arizona, USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <keysightt.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, 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. Alan L. Limbury, as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on November 11, 2021. The Forum received payment on November 11, 2021. On November 12, 2021, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <keysightt.com> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, 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 November 17, 2021, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of December 7, 2021 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@keysightt.com. Also on November 17, 2021, 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 December 10, 2921, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Alan L. Limbury 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 is a U.S. based company that manufacturers test and measurement equipment and related software focused on the electronics and radio fields. Complainant has rights in the KEYSIGHT mark through numerous registrations of the mark, including with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”). Respondent’s <keysightt.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s KEYSIGHT mark. Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the <keysightt.com> domain name as Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name nor did Complainant authorize Respondent to use the KEYSIGHT mark in any way. Respondent fails to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name. Instead, Respondent attempts to impersonate Complainant by engaging in a phishing scheme through an email address. Respondent registered the typosquatted <keysightt.com> domain name in bad faith with actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the KEYSIGHT mark and uses the domain name in bad faith to generate emails that look as if they are legitimately emanating from Complainant and purporting to be from one of Complainant’s legitimate employees, in an attempt to trick Complainant’s customer into remitting payment to Respondent instead of to Complainant. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant has established all the elements entitling it to relief. 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 Complainant has shown that it has rights in the KEYSIGHT mark through numerous registrations of the mark, including with the USPTO (e.g. Reg. No. 4,832,466, registered October 13, 2015). The Panel finds Respondent’s <keysightt.com> domain name to be confusingly similar to Complainant’s KEYSIGHT mark since it incorporates the mark in its entirety and merely adds the letter “t” along with the inconsequential “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”), which may be ignored. Complainant has established this element. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy sets out three illustrative circumstances as examples which, if established by Respondent, shall demonstrate rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, i.e. (i) before any notice to Respondent of the dispute, the use by Respondent of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or (ii) Respondent (as an individual, business or other organization) has been commonly known by the domain name, even if Respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or (iii) Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert customers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue. On October 13, 2021, an employee of Complainant sent an email from his legitimate email address ending in <@keysight.com> to one of Complainant’s customers regarding overdue payment. On October 19, 2021, the <keysightt.com> domain name was registered by Respondent, who sent a “follow-up” email that day to the same customer originating from the <keysightt.com> domain name and mimicking the name and email address of Complainant’s employee, claiming that Complainant had changed bank accounts and providing the customer with instructions for remitting payment. The email address listed on the signature block of the email sent by Respondent featured the correct email address of an employee of Complainant, differing only by the extra “t” in the <keysightt.com> domain name. These circumstances, together with Complainant’s assertions, are sufficient to constitute a prima facie showing of absence of rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name on the part of Respondent. The evidentiary burden therefore shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the <keysightt.com> domain name. See Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014). Respondent has made no attempt to do so. The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name. Complainant has established this element. Registration and Use in Bad Faith The circumstances set out above in relation to the second element satisfy the Panel that Respondent was fully aware of Complainant’s KEYSIGHT mark when Respondent registered the <keysightt.com> domain name and that Respondent did so for the purpose of defrauding Complainant’s customers by masquerading as a legitimate employee of Complainant. The domain name was thus clearly registered and used in bad faith. Complainant has established this element. DECISION Complainant having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED. Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <keysightt.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Alan L. Limbury, Panelist Dated: December 13, 2021 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.