{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-102751",
    "time_of_filling": "2019-11-07 11:33:02",
    "domain_names": [
        "swinerton-builders.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Šárka Glasslová (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Swinerton Incorporated"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "RiskIQ, Inc. c\/o Jonathan Matkowsky",
    "respondent": [
        "Jose  Zafra"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\n[I] The disputed domain name is Identical or Confusingly Similar to a Mark in which Complainant has Rights (Policy paragraph 4(a)(ii)).\r\n\r\n[I.A] The Complainant's Background and the SWINERTON Mark\r\n\r\nRecognized nationally in the U.S. since its founding in 1888, through its predecessors-in-interest and subsidiaries, the  Complainant provides commercial construction and construction management services throughout the U.S. It has helped build communities from the peaks of the Rocky Mountains to the Hawaiian Islands, from the Gulf of Alaska to the jungles of Colombia. The company obtained its state license in California in 1927 when the State of California first began issuing licenses. Many structures built by the Complainant now claim a spot on the National Register of Historic Places and other architectural preservation lists. In 2018, Swinerton was ranked as the 117th largest private company across all industries, according to Forbes.\r\n\r\nTThe Complainant owns several Swinerton registered and Common Law trademarks SWINERTON.\r\n\r\n[I.B]. The disputed domain name is Confusingly Similar to a Mark in Which Swinerton Has Rights (paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy).\r\n\r\nThe Respondent wholly incorporates the mark into the disputed domain name. Adding a generic term (\"builders\") related to the services covered by the Complainant's registrations reinforces confusing similarity. There is also a stronger likelihood of confusion, considering the Complainant naturally uses the generic word that was appended to its mark in the disputed domain name. One of the Complainant's subsidiaries even goes by \"Swinerton Builders\". Generic words, with or without a hyphen, do not negate confusing similarity.\r\n\r\n[II] Respondent has no Rights or Legitimate Interests in the disputed domain name (Policy, paragraph 4(a)(ii)).\r\n\r\nNot only is the Respondent not commonly known by the disputed domain name, as evidenced by the registrar verification response, but the Complainant has not authorized, licensed, or otherwise permitted Respondent to use the trademark.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent configured the Web server on the disputed domain name in a way that a browser will connect to it, but not be able to find the requested URL and instead returns a 404 error message. There is no plausible future active use of the disputed domain name name by the Respondent that would be legitimate without permission from the Complainant.\r\n\r\nThe following answer from DNS shows the priority of mail servers connected in the DNS via the MX records to the disputed domain name so that the Respondent can use the disputed domain name to direct email to his G Suite account:\r\n\r\nANSWER SECTION:\r\nswinerton-builders.com. 3600 IN MX 1 aspmx.l.google.com.\r\nswinerton-builders.com. 3600 IN MX 5 alt1.aspmx.l.google.com.\r\nswinerton-builders.com. 3600 IN MX 5 alt2.aspmx.l.google.com.\r\nswinerton-builders.com. 3600 IN MX 10 aspmx2.googlemail.com.\r\nswinerton-builders.com. 3600 IN MX 10 aspmx3.googlemail.com.\r\n\r\n[III]. The disputed domain name Was Registered and Used in Bad Faith (Policy paragraph 4(a)(iii)).\r\n\r\nThe Respondent knew of the Complainant's mark before registering and using the disputed domain name, and he likely has used, and if not stopped, will continue to use, the disputed domain name to scam and deceive people using Gmail. He combined the Complainant's mark with a generic word describing the services covered by the registered trademark in which the Complainant has established rights well before the creation of the disputed domain name. Setting up a custom email address knowing it is likely to deceive recipients into thinking it belongs to the Complainant and then connecting it to the DNS by configuring Mail (MX) records to collect mail on the disputed domain name is bad-faith registration and use. Creating Mail records on the disputed domain name exploits the trademark significance as emails obtained through the server are likely being sent mistakenly believing the email accounts are under the Complainant's management. Deceitful email communication for financial gain is neither bona fide, not is it fair use.\r\n\r\nAlso, in this case, the Respondent's concealing of its identity and contact information for the disputed domain name reinforces the independent finding of bad-faith registration and use.\r\n",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of other legal proceedings concerning the disputed domain name which are pending or decided. ",
    "no_response_filed": "NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.\r\n",
    "rights": "The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy).",
    "no_rights_or_legitimate_interests": "The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the Respondent to have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy).",
    "bad_faith": "The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy).",
    "procedural_factors": "The Panel is satisfied that all procedural requirements under UDRP were met and there is no other reason why it would be inappropriate to provide a decision.",
    "decision": "Accepted",
    "panelists": [
        "Udo Pfleghar"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2019-12-23 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant is the registered proprietor of the following registered trademarks:\r\n\r\nU.S. Reg. No. 2,284,825, issued Oct. 12, 1999, in Int'l Cl. 35, first use Oct. 11, 1923, for SWINERTON (Standard Characters); U.S. Reg. No. 2,282,855, issued Oct. 5, 1999, in Int'l Cl. 37, first use 1923, for SWINERTON (Standard Characters); \r\nU.S. Reg. No. 5,756,816, issued May 21, 2019, Int'l Cl. 35,37, first use in 2018 for a SWINTERTON (& Design). \r\n\r\nThe Complainant also has common law rights in the United States going as far back as 1923 based on the certified first-use dates in the '825 and '855 registrations. \r\n",
    "decision_domains": {
        "SWINERTON-BUILDERS.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}