Thompsonhines.com

The timeline behind thompsonhines.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 Thompson Hine LLP v. Calis Tas Claim Number: FA2209002010657 PARTIES Complainant is Thompson Hine LLP (“Complainant”), represented by Carrie A. Shufflebarger of Thompson Hine LLP, Ohio, USA. Respondent is Calis Tas (“Respondent”), Georgia, USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <thompsonhines.com>, (‘the Domain Name’) registered with Namecheap, Inc.. 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 Forum electronically on September 1, 2022; Forum received payment on September 1, 2022. On September 1, 2022, Namecheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <thompsonhines.com> Domain Name is registered with Namecheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Namecheap, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Namecheap, Inc. 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 September 6, 2022, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 26, 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@thompsonhines.com. Also on September 6, 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, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On October 6, 2022 pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Dawn Osborne as Panelist. Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that 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, 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 is the owner of the mark THOMPSON HINE, registered, inter alia, in the USA for legal services with first use recorded as 2001. The Domain Name registered in 2021 is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark adding only the letter ‘s’ and the gTLD “.com” neither of which prevents the said confusing similarity. The Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, is not commonly known by it and is not authorized by the Complainant. The Domain Name has been used for competing pay per click links which is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate non commercial or fair use. It is registration and use in bad faith diverting Internet users and causing confusion and disrupting the Complainant’s business. The Domain Name is a typosquatting registration. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS The Complainant is the owner of the mark THOMPSON HINE, registered, inter alia, in the USA for legal services with first use recorded as 2001. The Domain Name registered in 2021 has been used for competing pay per click links. 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 consist of the Complainant's THOMPSON HINE mark (which is registered in the USA for legal services with first use recorded as 2001), a letter ‘s’ and the gTLD “.com”. The Panel agrees that misspellings of a Complainant’s mark in a domain name do not prevent confusing similarity between that domain name and the Complainant's trade mark pursuant to the Policy. See Bank of America Corporation v. Above.com Domain Privacy, FA 1629452 (Forum Aug. 18, 2015) (finding that the <blankofamerica.com> domain name contains the entire BANK OF AMERICA mark and merely adds the gTLD ‘.com’ and the letter ‘l’ to create a misspelling of the word ‘bank.’). As such adding a letter ‘s’ to the Complainant’s mark does not prevent the Domain Name being confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark under the Policy. The gTLD “.com” does not serve to distinguish a domain name from a 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 mark. There is no evidence or reason to suggest the Respondent is, in fact, 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 use of the Domain Name is commercial so it is not legitimate non commercial fair use. The Respondent has used the site attached to the Domain Name to link to third party businesses that compete with the Complainant. He does not make it clear that there is no commercial connection with the Complainant. The Panel finds this use is confusing. As such it cannot amount to the bona fide offering of goods and services or a legitimate non commercial or fair use. See Ashley Furniture Industries Inc. v. domain admin /private registrations aitken Gesellschaft, FA 1506001626253 (Forum July 29, 2015) (linking to pay per click links does not amount to a bona fide offering of goods and services or a legitimate non commercial fair use). The Domain Name also appears to be a typosquatting registration differing from the Complainant’s url by one letter ‘s’. Typosquatting is also indicative 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).”). The Respondent has not replied to this Complaint or provided any explanation. 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 Typosquatting is an indication of bad faith per se. See Cost Plus Management Services, Inc. v. xushuaiwei, FA 1800036 (Forum Sept. 7, 2018) (“Typosquatting itself is evidence of relevant bad faith registration and use.”). 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) (“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.”). In the opinion of the panelist the use made of the Domain Name in relation to the site is confusing and disruptive in that visitors to the site might reasonably believe it is connected to or approved by the Complainant as it links to competing services under a domain name containing the Complainant’s mark. Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain Internet users to his website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trade mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the web site or services offered on it likely to disrupt the business of the Complainant. See Health Republic Insurance Company v. Above.comLegal, FA 1506001622088, (Forum July 10, 2015) re diversion to pay per click links. 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) and (iv). 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 <thompsonhines.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Dawn Osborne, Panelist Dated: October 6, 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.