WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION TENICA and Associates LLC v. Privacydotlink Customer 2326444 / Kwangpyo Kim, MEDIABLUE INC Case No. D2018-2647 1. The Parties

The Complainant is TENICA and Associates LLC of Chantilly, Virginia, United States of America (“United States”), internally represented.

The Respondent is Privacydotlink Customer 2326444 of Grand Cayman, Cayman Islands, Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom / Kwangpyo Kim, MEDIABLUE INC of Gwangju, Republic of Korea, internally represented. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name is registered with Uniregistrar Corp (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 19, 2018. On November 20, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On November 21, 2018, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on November 23, 2018, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on November 27, 2018.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended 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 the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on November 29, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 19, 2018. The Response was filed with the Center December 18, 2018.

The Center appointed Steven A. Maier, Jonathan Agmon and The Hon Neil Brown Q.C. as panelists in this matter on January 14, 2019. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. Each member of 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. Complainant’s Supplemental Filing

The Complainant submitted an unsolicited supplemental filing, taking issue with aspects of the Response, on January 4, 2019. Under Paragraph 10 of the Rules, it is for the Panel to determine the admissibility, relevance, materiality and weight of the evidence, and also to conduct the proceedings with due expedition. While the panel must ensure that each party has an opportunity fairly to put its case, section 4.6 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”) recognizes that “Unsolicited supplemental filings are generally discouraged, unless specifically requested by the panel.” Having these considerations in mind, the Panel does not find there to be any exceptional circumstances or other compelling reason why the Complainant’s supplemental filing should be admitted in this case and declines to admit the supplemental filing. 5. Factual Background

The Complainant is a limited liability company located in the state of Virginia, United States. According to its website at “.” it is a “provider of government services and consulting solutions in the areas of national defense, homeland and cybersecurity for both government and commercial clients.”

The Complainant is the owner of United States trademark number 3766360 for a design consisting of half a star with the stylized word TENICA, registered on March 30, 2010, for “consulting in the field of information technology” in Class 42 and “consulting in the field of national defense and homeland security” in Class 45.

The disputed domain name was first registered on August 7, 2002. It appears from available WhoIs records to have been registered until about August 7, 2013, by a company named “Tenica Tenda Informatica”, located in Spain. It was acquired by the Respondent at some time between that date and January 2014.

The disputed domain name, under the Respondent’s control, has resolved to a website at “www.” comprising a parking page containing various links. On (or on dates including) October 29, 2018, the page included a link to “Tunica Jobs”. The page has also included a statement that the disputed domain name is listed for sale and inviting enquiries. 6. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant

The Complainant submits that it is well known in the United States and internationally as a company providing staffing services to the United States government and that it has employees in multiple continents. It states that it has had an online presence since 2010 to advertise job openings, provide corporate information, conduct recruitment and handle resumes and that it was featured in the INC 500 fastest growing companies from 2015-2017. It states that it owns the domain names , , and others including the term “tenica” which were registered in 2009.

The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.

The Complainant submits that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. It states that the Respondent is not associated with the Complainant and that the Complainant has never authorized it to use its TENICA trademark. It submits that the Respondent has no relevant trademark rights of its own and that, while there was a Republic of Korea trademark for TENICA that was registered in 2001 and expired in 2011, there is no evidence that the Respondent had any connection with that trademark.

The Complainant submits that the Respondent obtained no rights or legitimate interests by virtue only of its purchase of the disputed domain name. It states that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name only for the purposes of generating pay-per-click revenue and for offering the disputed domain name for sale, neither of which give rise to rights or legitimate interests. The Complainant also denies that the Respondent is making any legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name.

The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. In particular, the Complainant contends that the Respondent is intentionally attempting to attract Internet users to its website for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of goods or services found on that website.

The Complainant relies in particular on the link on the Respondent’s website to “Tunica Jobs”. The Complainant asserts that “Tunica is the autocorrect spelling for TENICA in Microsoft Word and other word-editing platforms and popular website-building applications” and that the Respondent has set up its pay-per-click links to mislead customers by aligning itself with the Complainant, whose primary services relate to jobs. The Complainant states that the Respondent removed the link to “Tunica Jobs” after the present Complaint was filed, which demonstrates that the Respondent was aware that the link infringed the Complainant’s trademark.

The Complainant submits that while the Spanish company, Tenica Tenda Informatica, may at one time have legitimately used the disputed domain name, the Respondent has not, and would easily have discovered the Complainant’s prior use of the TENICA trademark had it carried out a simple check prior to acquiring the disputed domain name.

The Complainant exhibits correspondence from October 2018 in which the Respondent states “We registered seven years ago before you applied for trademark,” which it says is untrue. The Complainant also states that the Respondent sent it a link to the expired Republic of Korea trademark, thereby falsely implying that it had some connection with that mark.

The Complainant provides evidence that it approached the Respondent in October 2018 offering to purchase the disputed domain name, but the Respondent replied in aggressive terms referring immediately to lawyers and proceedings under the UDRP and accusing the Complainant of “domain hijacking”. The Complainant subm