Gireyco.com

The timeline behind gireyco.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 Greystone & Co. II LLC. v. Customer Care / See Claim Number: FA2201001980565 PARTIES Complainant is Greystone & Co. II LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Yuval H. Marcus of Leason Ellis LLP, New York, USA. Respondent is Customer Care / See (“Respondent”), Texas, USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <gireyco.com>, (‘the Domain Name’) registered with Google LLC. PANEL The undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding. Dawn Osborne as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on January 14, 2022; the Forum received payment on January 14, 2022. On January 17, 2022, Google LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <gireyco.com> Domain Name is registered with Google LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Google LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Google 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 January 18, 2022, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 7, 2022 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@gireyco.com. Also on January 18, 2022, 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 February 10, 2022 pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Dawn Osborne 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 The Complainant’s contentions can be summarized as follows: The names and marks GREYSTONE, GREYSTONE & CO. and GREYCO are coined terms that have no meaning other than to identify the Complainant for its real estate services. GREYSTONE has been used since at least 1988, GREYSTONE & CO. since at least 1988, and GREYCO since at least 1997 when the Complainant registered greyco.com. By way of their long and widespread use, the GREYSTONE, GREYSTONE & CO. and GREYCO names and trademarks have acquired significant consumer goodwill and represent valuable assets for the Complainant. Consumers have also come to associate these three marks with each other and the Complainant because it uses them together on its website and in its marketing. Through its vigilant protection of the marks the Complainant’s GREYSTONE, GREYSTONE & CO. and GREYCO marks have become well-known in the commercial real estate industry. A respondent’s registration of a domain name that is a misspelling of a trademark with a difference of only one letter is sufficient to establish that a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s prior mark. It is well-settled that the presence of gTLDs such as “.com” is irrelevant to whether a domain name is identical or confusingly similar. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, is not commonly known by it and is not authorized by the Complainant. Respondent registered the confusingly similar Domain Name on December 21, 2021 in bad faith and that same day began actively engaging in email phishing schemes to obtain wire transfers from Complainant’s real estate clients. Respondent’s phishing emails come from customercare@gireyco.com, use the GREYSTONE mark and logo, and contain a signature block with Complainant’s correct phone number and email domain (@greyco.com) to deceive customers into thinking that the email is a legitimate request from the Complainant to wire funds. Respondent’s use of a confusingly similar domain name in connection with these fraudulent phishing efforts does not represent a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). Phishing and typosquatting are bad faith per se. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS The Complainant is the owner of, at least, common law rights in GREYCO and GREYCO.COM for real estate services used since 1997. The Domain Name registered in 2021 has been used in an e mail phishing scheme using the Complainant’s GREYSTONE mark and logo and Complainant’s correct phone number and email domain (@greyco.com). 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 Domain Name consists of the Complainant's GREYCO mark (in which the Complainant owns common law rights in the USA for real estate services with first use recorded since 1997), the letter ‘i’ and the gTLD “.com”. The Domain Name registered in 2021 is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark adding only an extra letter ‘i’ and the gTLD “.com” which does not prevent said confusing similarity. Panels have found that adding one letter to a mark in a domain name does not prevent confusing similarity between that domain name and that mark. See Twitch Interactive, Inc. v. Antonio Teggi, FA 1626528 (Forum Aug. 3, 2015) (finding that twitcch.tv is confusingly similar to the TWITCH TV trade mark because the domain name consisted of a common misspelling of the mark by merely adding the letter ‘c’). Adding an extra ‘i’ does not prevent confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the Complainant’s GREYCO mark. The gTLD “.com” does not serve to distinguish the Domain Name from the Complainant’s mark. See Red Hat Inc. v. Haecke, FA 726010 (Forum July 24, 2006) (concluding that the redhat.org domain name is identical to the complainant's red hat mark because the mere addition of the gTLD was insufficient to differentiate the disputed domain name from the mark). Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered mark. As such the Panel holds that Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been satisfied. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant has not authorized the use of its marks. There is no evidence or reason to suggest the Respondent is commonly known by the Domain Name. 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). The Domain Name has been used in a fraudulent phishing attempt using the Complainant’s GREYSTONE and GREYCO.COM marks spelt correctly and the Complainant’s logo. This is deceptive and confusing. As such it cannot amount to the bona fide offering of goods and services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See DaVita Inc. v. Cynthia Rochelo, FA 1738034 (Forum July 20, 2017) (finding that ‘Passing off in furtherance of a fraudulent scheme is not considered a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use’.). The Domain Name also appears to be a typosquatting registration. Typosquatting is an indication of a lack of rights or legitimate interests. See Chegg Inc. v. yang qijin, FA1503001610050 (Forum Apr. 23, 2015) (“Users might mistakenly reach Respondent’s resolving website by misspelling Complainant’s mark. Taking advantage of Internet users’ typographical errors, known as typosquatting, demonstrates a respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interests under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).”). As such the Panelist finds that the Respondent does not have rights or a legitimate interest in the Domain Name and that the Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Impersonating a complainant by use of a complainant’s mark in a fraudulent phishing attempt is disruptive and evinces bad faith registration and use. See Microsoft Corporation v. Terrence Green/ Whois Agent/Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc., FA 1661030 (Forum Apr. 4 2016) (finding that respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to send fraudulent e mails constituted bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy 4(b)(iii).). The use of the Complainant’s GREYSTONE and GREYCO marks spelt correctly and the Complainant’s logo in the Respondent’s fraudulent phishing e mail scheme in this case shows that the Respondent is aware of the Complainant, its rights, business and services. The Domain Name seeks to take advantage of the situation where Internet users may make a typographical error. Typosquatting itself is evidence of relevant bad faith registration and use and disruption of the Complainant’s business. See Diners Club int'l Ltd. v. Domain Admin ****** It's all in the name ******, FA 156839 (Forum June 23, 2003) (registering a domain name in the hope that Internet users will mistype the Complainant’s mark and be taken to the Respondent’s site is registration and use in bad faith). Typosquatting also indicates the Respondent had knowledge of the Complainant and its rights. See InfoSpace, Inc. v. Greiner, FA 227653 (Forum Mar. 8, 2004) (“Respondent’s domain name is a simple and popular variation of a trademark commonly used by typosquatters …Such a domain name evidences actual knowledge of the underlying mark prior to the registration of the domain name, and as Respondent failed to submit any evidence to counter this inferrence [sic], Respondent’s actions evidence bad faith registration of the disputed domain name.”). As such, the Panel holds that the Complainant has made out its case that the Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith and has satisfied the third limb of the Policy under Policy 4(b)(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 <gireyco.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Dawn Osborne, Panelist Dated: February 16, 2022 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.