Guidehouseascend.com

The timeline behind guidehouseascend.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.

NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM DECISION Guidehouse LLP v. Fasa opasa Claim Number: FA2408002111184 PARTIES Complainant is Guidehouse LLP ("Complainant"), represented by Bruce A. McDonald of SMITH, GAMBRELL & RUSSELL, LLP, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is Fasa opasa ("Respondent"), Wisconsin, USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <guidehouseascend.com>, ('the Domain Name') registered with NameSilo, 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. Dawn Osborne as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on August 14, 2024; Forum received payment on August 14, 2024. On August 14, 2024, NameSilo, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <guidehouseascend.com> Domain Name is registered with NameSilo, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameSilo, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameSilo, 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 August 15, 2024, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 4, 2024 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@guidehouseascend.com. Also on August 15, 2024, 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 September 5, 2024 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's contentions can be summarised as follows: The Complainant is the owner of the trade mark GUIDE HOUSE registered, inter alia, in the USA for business consultancy services since 2019 with first use recorded as 2018. The Complainant sponsors the non profit company Ascend Greater Washington. The Domain Name registered in 2024 is confusingly similar to the Complainant' mark merely adding the generic word 'ascend' and the gTLD .com neither of which prevents 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 authorised by the Complainant. The Domain Name has been used for commercial pay-per-click links which is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate non commercial fair use. The Domain Name has been registered and used in opportunistic bad faith to confuse Internet users for commercial gain and disrupt the Complainant's business. The Complainant is concerned about possible phishing. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS The Complainant is the owner of the trade mark GUIDE HOUSE registered, inter alia, in the USA for business consultancy services since 2019 with first use recorded as 2018. The Complainant sponsors the non-profit company Ascend Greater Washington. The Domain Name registered in 2024 has been used for commercial 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 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 The Domain Name in this Complaint combines the Complainant's GUIDEHOUSE mark (registered in the UK for, inter alia, business consultation services since 2019), the generic term 'ascend' and the gTLD .com. The addition of the generic term 'ascend' does not prevent confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the Complainant's mark. See Abbott Laboratories v Miles White, FA 1646590 (Forum Dec. 10, 2015) (holding that the addition of a generic term does not adequately distinguish a disputed domain name from complainant's mark under Policy 4(a)(i)). The gTLD .com does not serve to distinguish the Domain Name from the Complainant's mark, which is the distinctive component of the Domain Name. 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 finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a mark in which the Complainant has rights for the purpose of the Policy. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant has not authorised the use of its mark. 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, FA 1574905 (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 for commercial pay-per-click links. Use for commercial competing pay-per-click links does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate non commercial or fair use. See Insomniac Holdings, LLC v. Mark Daniels, FA 1735969 (Forum July 15, 2017) ("Respondent's use of ... domain name resolves to a site containing pay-per-click hyperlinks and advertisements… Since these kinds of advertisements generate revenue for the holder of a domain name, they cannot be noncommercial; further, they do not qualify as a bona fide offering."). The Respondent has not answered this Complaint or provided any explanation to rebut the prima facie case evidenced by the Complainant as set out herein. 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 The Panel notes that the Complainant sponsors a not for profit company called Ascend Greater Washington and this appears to indicate that the Respondent is targeting the Complainant and has knowledge of the Complainant and its rights, business and services. The Domain Name has been used for commercial pay-per-click links. Use of a domain name containing a mark with a reputation for pay-per-click links indicates bad faith being disruptive of the Complainant's business and diverting customers for commercial gain and can also indicate actual knowledge of the Complainant and its business. Accordingly, the Panel holds, in addition, that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain Internet users to its 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 products or services offered on it likely to disrupt the business of the Complainant. See Health Republic Insurance Company v Above.comLegal, FA 1622088 (Forum July 10, 2015) (regarding diversion to pay-per-click links). As such, the Panelist believes 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 paragraphs 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 <guidehouseascend.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Dawn Osborne, Panelist Dated: September 5, 2024 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.