Proviti-consultings.com

The timeline behind proviti-consultings.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 Protiviti Inc. v. Alan Mintz Claim Number: FA2602002203303 PARTIES Complainant is Protiviti Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Emily Ostreich of Foley & Lardner LLP, New York, USA. Respondent is Alan Mintz ("Respondent"), New York, USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <proviti-consultings.com>, registered with NameSilo, LLC. PANEL The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding. Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 3, 2026; Forum received payment on February 3, 2026. On February 3, 2026, NameSilo, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <proviti-consultings.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 February 4, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 24, 2026 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@proviti-consultings.com. Also on February 4, 2026, 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 February 25, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Paul M. DeCicco 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 contends in part as follows: Complainant Protiviti Inc. is a highly respected global consulting firm assisting companies with corporate governance initiatives, as well as solutions for business problems in technology, business processes, analytics, risk, compliance, and internal audits, and was founded in 2002. Since 2002, Complainant has used PROTIVITI as a trademark, alone or in combination with other elements, in connection with Protiviti's various audit and consulting services provided throughout the world. Since that time, Protiviti has successfully obtained numerous trademark registrations for its PROTIVITI and PROTIVITI formative marks in jurisdictions around the globe, including in the United States, Australia, Canada, China, India, Japan, the European Union, Singapore, and the United Kingdom. Id. Most relevantly, Protiviti's US trademark registrations are currently valid, subsisting, and in at least some instances, incontestable. The Subject Domain Name is Confusingly Similar to the PROTIVITI marks. Complainant's U.S. registrations for its PROTIVITI marks firmly establish Complainant's rights to the marks, as "the registration of a mark with a legitimate governmental authority is sufficient under the Policy to allow a rebuttable presumption of rights in the mark." The at-issue domain name is highly similar in appearance, sight, sound, and connotation to Complainant's PROTIVITI marks, and in particular, the well-known PROTIVITI house mark, and Protiviti's official domain name. The at-issue domain name incorporates the well-known PROTIVITI house mark and merely omits the letters "TI" between the letters "O" and "V," and adds a hyphen and the descriptive word "consultings" along with the top-level domain extension ".com." When the at-issue domain name contains the dominant features of a complainant's mark but omits or adds letters, this does not negate the confusing similarity between the domain name and the complainant's mark. Further, the addition of a hyphen and the generic or highly descriptive term "consulting" in this case may actually add to the confusion because the term clearly refers to Complainant's corporate activities, as it is a global consulting firm serving clients ranging from business, governments, public-sector agencies, and more. Internet visitors happening upon the at-issue domain name is Complainant's official domain name or website or an officially affiliated domain name or website, none of which is true. Thus, adding the generic or highly descriptive term "consulting" in the at-issue domain name does not distinguish it from the PROTIVITI marks. In addition, "[I]t is a well-established principle that generic top-level domains are irrelevant when conducting a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis." Respondent Has No Rights or Legitimate Interests in the Subject Domain Name. Complainant must make a prima facie showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the at-issue domain name and then the burden shifts to Respondent to demonstrate that it does, in fact, have rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. Here, Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the at-issue domain name because (i) Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name or any derivation of the same; and (ii) Respondent's use of the at-issue domain name does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods/services, nor does it constitute a non-commercial use or fair use of the at-issue domain name. The WHOIS registration record for the at-issue domain name was initially privacy protected; however, the registrant has recently been revealed as "Alan Mintz," an individual apparently located in New York. In addition, neither Respondent nor any person or entity associated therewith are commonly known as PROVITI-CONSULTINGS.COM, PROVITI CONSULTINGS, or any derivation of the same. Neither is Respondent nor any person or entity associated therewith a licensee or affiliate of Complainant, nor are they otherwise authorized to use or register its PROTIVITI marks in any manner, including in the at-issue domain name. To the extent that Respondent does not reply in this case, the Panel may presume that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the at-issue domain name. Respondent uses the domain name to perpetrate a fraudulent scheme to defraud unassuming consumers out of money. Such use is not a bona fide use, non-commercial use, or fair use of the at-issue domain name. Respondent's scheme includes contacting victims with an email address that incorporates the at-issue domain name, namely, billing@proviti-consultings.com and requesting that they pay an outstanding invoice. The email is made to appear as if it came from Complainant's purported "Finance Officer." The invoice accompanying the fraudulent email was created to mimic Complainant's letterhead, as it contains Complainant's P Logo and "Protiviti Consulting Inc." in the upper lefthand corner. Using a domain name to perpetrate a fraudulent scheme is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii)). The at-issue domain name resolves to a webpage that is currently inactive and hosts generic hyperlinks, some of which relate to Complainant's business and redirect Internet users to third-party websites. Panels have consistently found that using confusingly similar domain names to host webpages populated by pay-per-click hyperlinks to third-party websites does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods and services under the UDRP Policy, nor does it constitute a non-commercial or fair use of the at-issue domain name. Respondent has no past or present legitimate rights or interests in or to the at-issue domain name because the Respondent is neither commonly known by the domain name, nor is Respondent making a bona fide use or a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the domain name. The Subject Domain Name was Registered and is being used in Bad Faith. The evidence and totality of circumstances in this case show that Respondent "intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users" to the <proviti-consultings.com> domain name "by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement" of the at-issue domain name" under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). The at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's PROTIVITI marks because it incorporates the well-known PROTIVITI house mark and merely omits the letters "TI" between the letters "O" and "V," and adds the descriptive word "consultings" after a hyphen. Respondent's use of the confusingly similar domain name in this manner is an attempt to pass Respondent and the at-issue domain name off as Complainant, or as officially sponsored by or connected with Complainant, is likely to cause confusion, disrupt Complainant's business, and demonstrates Respondent's bad faith registration and use of the domain name under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii), (iv). Respondent's registration and use of the at-issue domain name as part of a fraudulent scam constitutes bad faith under the Policy. Specifically, Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to pass itself off as Complainant and induce victims into paying fake "invoices." It would be incomprehensible if the Panel did not find Respondent's use of the at-issue domain name to constitute bad faith here as well. Respondent is not currently making any legitimate current, active use of the domain name given that it resolves to a webpage that is currently inactive and hosts generic hyperlinks, some of which relate to Complainant's business and redirect Internet users to third-party websites. Finally, Panels have consistently held that "there is a legal presumption of bad faith when Respondent reasonably should have been aware of Complainant's trademarks, actually or constructively." The evidence and the totality of the circumstances surrounding the use and registration of the at-issue domain name demonstrates that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant and its PROTIVITI Marks, and in particular, the well-known PROTIVITI house mark, before registering the at-issue domain name. It is inconceivable that Respondent did not have actual knowledge of Complainant and its rights in the PROTIVITI marks before registering the at-issue domain name. Respondent was, at a minimum, placed on constructive notice of Complainant's claim of exclusive rights in its PROTIVITI marks by virtue of its registration of such marks with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, many of which were notably used and registered well prior to the registration of the at-issue domain name. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant has rights in the PROTIVITI trademark. Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and had not been authorized to use Complainant's trademark in any capacity. Respondent registered the at‑issue domain name after Complainant acquired rights in the PROTIVITI trademark. Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to facilitate a scheme to pose as Complainant via domain name hosted email to swindle third parties and to host 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 at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights. Complainant demonstrates rights in the PROTIVITI mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through any of its registration of such mark with the USPTO or with any other trademark authority worldwide. See Thermo Electron Corp. v. Xu, FA 713851 (Forum July 12, 2006) (finding that the complainants had established rights in marks where the marks were registered with a national trademark authority). Respondent's at-issue domain name consists of recognizable misspelled version of Complainant's PROTIVITI trademark where the mark's first "ti" is removed, followed by an irrelevant hyphen and the descriptive term "consultings," with all followed by the ".com" top-level domain name. The differences between Respondent's domain name and Complainant's trademark are insufficient to distinguish the domain name from Complainant's PROTIVITI mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent's <proviti-consultings.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's PROTIVITI trademark. See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018)("Where a relevant trademark is recognizable 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."). Rights or Legitimate Interests Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm't Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006). Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant's trademark in any capacity and as discussed below there are no Policy ¶ 4(c) circumstances from which the Panel might find that Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in respect of <proviti-consultings.com>. See Emerson Electric Co. v. golden humble / golden globals, FA 1787128 (Forum June 11, 2018) ("lack of evidence in the record to indicate a respondent is authorized to use [the] complainant's mark may support a finding that [the] respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)"). The WHOIS information for the at-issue domain name leads to identifying the domain name's registrant as "Alan Mintz" and the record before the Panel contains no evidence tending to prove that Respondent is commonly known by <proviti-consultings.com>. The Panel therefore concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Braun Corp. v. Loney, FA 699652 (Forum July 7, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain names where the WHOIS information, as well as all other information in the record, gave no indication that the respondent was commonly known by the domain names, and the complainant had not authorized the respondent to register a domain name containing its registered mark). Respondent uses <proviti-consultings.com> to host email pretending to be from Complainant to fraudulently induce third party associates of Complainant to make payments to Respondent by deceptively requesting payment on a bogus outstanding "invoice." Such use of the <proviti-consultings.com> domain name to pass off as Complainant and swindling third parties is not indicative of a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor of a non-commercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Microsoft Corporation v. Terrence Green / Whois Agent / Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc., FA 1661030 (Forum Apr. 4, 2016) (finding the respondent's use of the disputed domain names to send fraudulent emails purportedly from agents of complainant to be neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)); see also; Ripple Labs Inc. v. NGYEN NGOC PHUONG THAO, FA 1741737 (Forum Aug. 21, 2017) ("Respondent uses the [disputed] domain name to divert Internet users to Respondent's website… confusing them into believing that some sort of affiliation exists between it and Complainant… [which] is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).") Given the foregoing, Respondent lacks rights and lacks legitimate interests in respect of <proviti-consultings.com>. Registration and Use in Bad Faith As discussed below without limitation, Respondent acted in bad faith. Respondent used the at-issue domain name in connection with an email-based scheme intent on defrauding third parties into making payments to Respondent's account. Respondent used <proviti-consultings.com> hosted email that pretended to be from one of Complainant's agents so that Respondent might ultimately trick the email's recipient into making a payment to Respondent. Respondent's use of the domain name to provide Respondent with a confusing email address in furtherance of fraud shows Respondent's bad faith registration and use of the at-issue domain name 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 Microsoft Corporation v. Terrence Green / Whois Agent / Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc., FA 1661030 (Forum Apr. 4, 2016) (finding the Respondent's use of the disputed domain names to send fraudulent emails supported a finding of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)). Moreover, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the PROTIVITI mark when Respondent registered <proviti-consultings.com> as a domain name. Respondent's actual knowledge is shown from PROTIVITI's notoriety as well as from Respondent's scheme using the domain name to host email pretending to be from Complainant. Respondent's prior knowledge of Complainant's trademark rights further shows Respondent's bad faith registration and use of <proviti-consultings.com>. See Lemon Inc. v. Sumer Singh, FA 2110519 (Forum September 5, 2024 ("registration of a disputed domain name with actual knowledge of another's trademark rights is sufficient to establish bad faith, and can be shown by the notoriety of the mark and the use the Respondent makes of the disputed domain name"); see also, Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name). 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 <proviti-consultings.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist Dated: February 25, 2026 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.