Goldenhippojobs.com, Goldenhippohire.com

The timeline behind goldenhippojobs.com

Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.

How each disputed name was decided in this proceeding.

Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.

DECISION Whole Body Research, LLC d/b/a Golden Hippo v. LaFromboise Elisa / David Mayor Claim Number: FA2307002053686 PARTIES Complainant is Whole Body Research, LLC d/b/a Golden Hippo (“Complainant”), represented by Travis Li, California, USA. Respondent is LaFromboise Elisa / David Mayor (“Respondent”), USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES The domain names at issue are <goldenhippojobs.com> and <goldenhippohire.com> (collectively “Domain Names”), registered with Google LLC. PANEL The undersigned certifies that they have acted independently and impartially and to the best of their knowledge have no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding. Nicholas J.T. Smith as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on July 18, 2023; Forum received payment on July 18, 2023. On July 19, 2023, Google LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <goldenhippojobs.com> and <goldenhippohire.com> domain names are registered with Google LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. 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 July 24, 2023, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 14, 2023 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@goldenhippojobs.com, postmaster@goldenhippohire.com. Also on July 24, 2023, 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 August 15, 2023, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Nicholas J.T. Smith 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 Names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PRELIMINARY ISSUE: MULTIPLE RESPONDENTS In the instant proceedings, Complainant has alleged that the entities which control the domain names at issue are effectively controlled by the same person and/or entity, which is operating under several aliases (namely LaFromboise Elisa / David Mayor). Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”) provides that a “complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder.” Complainant contends that the registrants for the Domain Names are related because a) the Domain Names are very similar b) the Domain Names are registered with the same Registrar within 6 days of each other c) while the websites at both Domain Names are inactive, both Domain Names have been used for essentially identical phishing e-mails listing the same position being available and using other identical or similar verbiage. This evidence, in the Panel’s opinion, strongly suggests that the Domain Names are owned/controlled by a single Respondent; were the named Respondents unrelated, it would be unlikely that two unconnected entities would register two similar domain names targeted at the same entity and send essentially identical phishing e-mails in connection with the same (fake) job role. In light of these contentions, which none of the identified Respondents deny, the Panel concludes that, on the balance of probabilities, the Domain Names are commonly owned/controlled by a single Respondent who is using multiple aliases. Hereafter the single Respondent will be referred to as “Respondent” in this Decision. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Complainant is a direct-to-consumer marketing company with a portfolio of over 20 brands featuring heath supplements, cosmetics and pet care products, generating over 1 billion US dollars in annual revenue. Complainant asserts rights in the GOLDEN HIPPO Mark based upon its application for registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office and under common law through its use in commerce since 2012. The <goldenhippojobs.com> and <goldenhippohire.com> domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the GOLDEN HIPPO Mark because the Domain Names incorporate the GOLDEN HIPPO Mark in its entirety, and the only alteration is the addition of the generic words “jobs” or “hire” and the “.com” generic top-level-domain ("gTLD"). Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names. Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Names, nor has Respondent been authorized by Complainant to use the GOLDEN HIPPO Mark. Respondent has not used the Domain Names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Rather, the Domain Names are involved in a phishing scheme where Respondent impersonates Complainant to obtain personal information from individuals seeking employment with Complainant. Respondent registered and uses the Domain Names in bad faith. Respondent has used the Domain Names to fraudulently mislead potential employees of Complainant in an effort to perpetuate fraud. Lastly, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the GOLDEN HIPPO Mark prior to registration of the Domain Names given Respondent’s use of the Domain Names to pass off as Complainant. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant holds trademark rights for the GOLDEN HIPPO mark. The Domain Names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s GOLDEN HIPPO mark. Complainant has established that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names and that Respondent registered and has used the Domain Names in bad faith. DISCUSSION Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and 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 As Complainant does not have any registered trade mark rights it is therefore necessary to consider whether Complainant holds common law rights in the GOLDEN HIPPO mark as Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) does not require a complainant to hold a registered trademark if it can demonstrate established common law rights in the mark. See Microsoft Corporation v. Story Remix / Inofficial, FA 1734934 (Forum July 10, 2017). To establish common law rights in a mark, a complainant generally must prove that the mark has generated a secondary meaning. See Goodwin Procter LLP v. Amritpal Singh, FA 1736062 (Forum July 18, 2017) (holding that the complainant demonstrated its common law rights in the GOODWIN mark through evidence of “long time continuous use of the mark, significant related advertising expenditures, as well as other evidence of the mark’s having acquired secondary meaning.”). Complainant has operated a marketing services business under the GOLDEN HIPPO mark since 2012, with a portfolio of over 20 brands generating 1 billion USD in annual revenue. Complainant operates a website at www.goldenhippo.com where the GOLDEN HIPPO mark is prominently displayed and it has been the subject of third-party media coverage. The Panel is satisfied from Complainant’s evidence (including evidence of length of use, third party coverage and portfolio size) that Complainant’s use of the GOLDEN HIPPO mark for its marketing services production business is sufficient to establish secondary meaning in that mark and hence Complainant has common law rights in the GOLDEN HIPPO mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). The Panel finds that the <goldenhippojobs.com> and <goldenhippohire.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s GOLDEN HIPPO mark because they each wholly incorporate Complainant’s GOLDEN HIPPO mark and add a generic term (“jobs” or “hire”) and the gTLD “.com.” Adding a generic term and a gTLD to a mark fails to sufficiently distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). 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 Dell Inc. v. pushpender chauhan, FA 1784548 (Forum June 11, 2018) (“Respondent merely adds the term ‘supports’ and a ‘.org’ gTLD to the DELL mark. Thus, the Panel finds Respondent’s disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s DELL mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”). The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant alleges that Respondent holds no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names. In order for Complainant to succeed under this element, it must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the Domain Names under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006) and AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Forum Sept. 25, 2006) (“Complainant must first make a prima facie showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names, which burden is light. If Complainant satisfies its burden, then the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain names.”). The Panel holds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case. Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names as Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Names, nor has Complainant authorized Respondent to use the GOLDEN HIPPO mark. Respondent has no relationship, affiliation, connection, endorsement or association with Complainant. WHOIS information can help support a finding that a respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, especially where a privacy service has been engaged. See State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Dale Anderson, FA1504001613011 (Forum May 21, 2015) (concluding that because the WHOIS record lists “Dale Anderson” as the registrant of the disputed domain name, the respondent was not commonly known by the <statefarmforum.com> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)); see also Kohler Co. v. Privacy Service, FA1505001621573 (Forum July 2, 2015) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) where “Privacy Service” was listed as the registrant of the disputed domain name). The WHOIS lists “LaFromboise Elisa / David Mayor” as registrant of record for the Domain Names. Coupled with Complainant’s unrebutted assertions as to absence of any affiliation or authorization between the parties, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Names in accordance with Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). The Domain Names are presently inactive which by itself does not show a bona fide offering of goods and services. Complainant alleges, and provides evidence supporting its allegations, that Respondent uses email addresses associated with the Domain Names to attempt to pass itself off as Complainant in furtherance of a phishing scam, being a scheme where Respondent would then send fake job offer e-mails to potential candidates using an e-mail address created through the Domain Names, through which Respondent would request that the candidate provide a variety of personal and other information to the Respondent. Use of a disputed domain name to pass off as a complainant through emails is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Emerson Electric Co. v. Adilcon Rocha, FA 1735949 (Forum July 11, 2017) (finding that respondent’s attempt to pass off as complainant through emails does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services and, as such, respondent lacked rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name); see also Caterpillar Inc. v. ruth weinstein, FA 1770352 (Forum March 7, 2018) (“Use of a disputed domain name in an attempt to pass itself off as a complainant and to conduct a phishing scheme is indicative of a failure to use said domain name in connection with a bona fide offer of goods and services per Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or otherwise fair use per Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”). The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Registration and Use in Bad Faith The Panel finds that, at the time Respondent registered the Domain Names (June 27 and July 3, 2023 respectively), Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s GOLDEN HIPPO mark. The Respondent has used the Domain Names to pass itself off as Complainant for financial gain. In the absence of rights or legitimate interests of its own this demonstrates registration in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). The Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the Domain Names in bad faith as Respondent uses email addresses associated with the Domain Names to attempt to pass itself off as employees of the Complainant to disrupt the Complainant’s business or for financial gain. Using a disputed domain name to pass off as an employee of a complainant via email can demonstrate bad faith under Policy ¶¶ 4(b) (iii) and (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 Qatalyst Partners LP v. Devimore, FA 1393436 (Forum July 13, 2011) (finding that using the disputed domain name as an e-mail address to pass itself off as the complainant in a phishing scheme is evidence of bad faith registration and use). Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the Domain Names in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied 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 <goldenhippojobs.com> and <goldenhippohire.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Nicholas J.T. Smith, Panelist Dated: August 16, 2023 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.