Onecognizant-cognizant.com

The timeline behind onecognizant-cognizant.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 Cognizant Technology Solutions U.S. Corporation v. Deepak Singh Claim Number: FA2210002017935 PARTIES Complainant is Cognizant Technology Solutions U.S. Corporation (“Complainant”), represented by David M. Kramer of DLA Piper LLP (US), District of Columbia. Respondent is Deepak Singh (“Respondent”), India. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <onecognizant-cognizant.com>, registered with NameCheap, Inc.. PANEL The undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his or her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding. Richard Hill as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on October 27, 2022; Forum received payment on October 27, 2022. On Oct 28, 2022, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <onecognizant-cognizant.com> domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. 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 November 1, 2022, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of November 21, 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@onecognizant-cognizant.com. Also on November 1, 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 November 29, 2022, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Richard Hill 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 Complainant states that it is a global leader in business and technology consulting services. It combines a passion for client satisfaction, technology innovation, deep industry and business process expertise, and a global, collaborative workforce. With over 100 delivery centers worldwide and approximately 260,000 employees as of July 31, 2018, Complainant is a member of the NASDAQ-100, the S&P 500, the Forbes Global 2000, and the Fortune 500 and is ranked among the top performing and fastest growing companies in the world. In 2011, Fortune magazine named it as the world's third most admired IT services company in the world. Complainant has rights in the COGNIZANT mark based on registration in the United States in 2001. Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its COGNIZANT mark as it incorporates the mark in its entirety, merely adding the generic term “one”, a hyphen, and the generic top level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.” 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 commonly known by the disputed domain name and Complainant has not granted Respondent permission or license to use its mark. 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 is using the disputed domain to pass off as Complainant in order to phish for users’ personal information: Complainant uses the subdomain <onecognizant.cognizant.com> as the domain name for its customer login portal and the disputed domain name resolves to a web page that prompts users to “login” to their account. Further, says Complainant, Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent intentionally attempts to attract users, presumably for commercial gain, and pass off as Complainant as the disputed domain name in furtherance of a phishing scheme. Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the COGNIZANT mark prior to registration. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant owns the mark COGNIZANT and uses it to provide consulting services. Complainant’s rights in its mark date back to 2001. The disputed domain name was registered in 2022. Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its marks. Respondent uses the disputed domain name to pass off as Complainant to conduct a phishing scheme. 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 COGNIZANT mark in its entirety, merely adding the term “one”, a hyphen, and the “.com” gTLD. Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), such changes are generally insufficient in differentiating a disputed domain name from the mark it incorporates. See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) (“Where a relevant trademark is recognisable within a disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element.”); see also Mrs. World Pageants, Inc. v. Crown Promotions, FA 94321 (Forum Apr. 24, 2000) (finding that punctuation is not significant in determining the similarity of a domain name and mark). Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark in any way. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name: under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), WHOIS information can support a finding that a respondent is not commonly known by the disputed 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.). Here, the WHOIS information of record identifies the registrant as “Deepak Singh”. The Panel therefore finds under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Respondent uses the disputed domain name to pass off as Complainant to conduct a phishing scheme. This is evidence that a respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) & (iii). See DaVita Inc. v. Cynthia Rochelo, FA 1738034 (Forum July 20, 2017) (”Passing off in furtherance of a phishing scheme is not considered a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use.”). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). And 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 uses the disputed domain name to phish for Internet users’ personal information. This is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Wells Fargo & Co. v. Maniac State, FA 608239 (Forum Jan. 19, 2006) (finding bad faith registration and use where the respondent was using the <wellsbankupdate.com> domain name in order to fraudulently acquire the personal and financial information of the complainant’s customers); see also Hess Corp. v. GR, FA 770909 (Forum Sept. 19, 2006) (finding that the respondent demonstrated bad faith registration and use because it was attempting to acquire the personal and financial information of Internet users through a confusingly similar domain name). Thus the Panel finds bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). Further, Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s mark: its use of the domain name and the resolving website to attract users who intend to visit Complainant’s login site <onecognizant.cognizant.com> indicates that Respondent knew of Complainant, its activities, and its mark. 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 Am. Online, Inc. v. Miles, FA 105890 (Forum May 31, 2002) (“Respondent is using the domain name at issue to resolve to a website at which Complainant’s trademarks and logos are prominently displayed. Respondent has done this with full knowledge of Complainant’s business and trademarks. The Panel finds that this conduct is that which is prohibited by Paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.”). 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 <onecognizant-cognizant.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Richard Hill, Panelist Dated: November 30, 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.