WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Jones Lang LaSalle IP, Inc. v. Name Redacted Case No. D2018-1021 1. The Parties

Complainant is Jones Lang LaSalle IP, Inc. of Chicago, Illinois, United States of America (“United States”), represented by CSC Digital Brand Services AB, United States.

Respondent is Name Redacted.1 2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name is registered with GoD, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 9, 2018. On May 9, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On the same date, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details.

The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).

In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on May 16, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was June 5, 2018. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on June 8, 2018.

The Center appointed Mark Partridge as the sole panelist in this matter on June 18, 2018. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7. 4. Factual Background

Complainant is a professional services and investment management firm specializing in real estate. Complainant provides its service under the JLL trademark, which it adopted in 2014. Complainant serves clients in over 80 countries from more than 300 corporate office locations worldwide. Complainant has obtained United States Trademark Registrations for the JLL trademark (Reg. Nos. 4564654 and 4709457) for a variety of real estate and investment services, the first of which registered on July 8, 2014, with claimed first use of March 4, 2014. Complainant has also obtained rights in Canada and the European Union. Complainant operates the website “” where it advertises its services under its JLL trademark. Complainant has also acquired rights in the top-level domain “.JLL”.

Respondent is identified in the WhoIs record as an individual. In fact, Complainant has provided evidence that that individual is a senior officer for Jones Lang LaSalle Incorporated, Complainant in this action. That individual has provided a sworn affidavit attesting to the fact that she did not register the disputed domain name. The record shows therefore that that individual is not in fact Respondent, and that Respondent has fraudulently used another’s name to mask the actual owner of the disputed domain name.

The disputed domain name was acquired on February 27, 2018, and resolves to an inactive site. Complainant also provides evidence that the disputed domain name has been used for email, specifically directed at Complainant’s employees. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant

Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name is confusingly to its JLL trademark, which Complainant claims to have used since 2014, only adding the descriptive term “exec.” Complainant contends that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name because Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant, has not been authorized to use the JLL trademark, is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and is not making any bona fide use of the disputed domain name. Complainant asserts that Respondent is using the disputed domain name to execute a phishing scheme against Complainant’s employees, posing as a senior officer of Complainant and sending fraudulent emails under her name via the disputed domain name.

Complainant asserts that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith because Respondent’s actions support a finding that it had actual notice of Complainant’s rights in the JLL trademark. Complainant notes that the disputed domain name resolves to an inactive page, which it asserts is sufficient to show bad faith use, but also that the disputed domain name is being used to execute a phishing scheme against Complainant’s employees. In sum, Complainant asserts that Respondent’s actions show it knew of and targeted Complainant’s trademark. B. Respondent

Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings

Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, a complainant is required to prove each of the following three elements:

(i) The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which Complainant has rights,