WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Conduent, Inc. v. Towry DeRozan, Raptors LLC Case No. DCC2018-0010 1. The Parties

The Complainant is Conduent, Inc. of Florham Park, New Jersey, United States of America ("United States"), represented by Steven M. Levy, Esq., United States.

The Respondent is Towry DeRozan, Raptors LLC of Longwood, Florida, United States1. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name is registered with Key-Systems GmbH dba (the "Registrar"). 3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on July 19, 2018. On July 20, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On July 23, 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 the same date 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 July 23, 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 July 30, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 19, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on August 20, 2018.

The Center appointed Dennis Foster as the sole panelist in this matter on August 23, 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

The Complainant is an established United States company specialized in producing management transactional systems for use between companies or governmental agencies and their customers/users and it does significant business on an international basis. The Complainant conducts operations under the CONDUENT service mark and has obtained registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") for that mark (e.g., Registration No. 5297518, registered on September 26, 2017).

The disputed domain name, was registered on June 25, 2018. The disputed domain name resolves to an inactive parked webpage from which the Respondent has issued emails to various Complainant customers, soliciting payment for invoices. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant

- The Complainant, created on January 3, 2017, is a subsidiary of Xerox Corporation, a large, well-known United States of America company. It specializes in producing management transactional systems for use between companies or governmental agencies and their customers/users. The Complainant's clients include most Fortune 100 companies and many governmental agencies throughout the United States and in countries around the world.

- The Complainant has operated under its CONDUENT service mark since its inception. The mark is registered with the USPTO and other pertinent authorities. The Complainant also does business routinely through a website located at its domain name, .

- The disputed domain name, , is identical to the CONDUENT service mark. The principal part of the name is an identical copy of the mark, and the additional country code Top-Level Domain ("ccTLD") does nothing to alleviate the confusion between the name and mark.

- The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Policy paragraph 4(c) cannot be invoked to support the Respondent's claim to those rights or interests. The name is attached to a parked webpage that is inactive. Moreover, there is concrete evidence that the Respondent uses the name to engage in a "phishing" scheme to fraudulently seek payment from the Complainant's customers for fake invoices. Neither of these circumstances constitutes "a bona fide offering of goods or services" or "a legitimate noncommercial or fair use" of the disputed domain name. Finally, based upon the WhoIs record, there is no evidence that the Respondent, or any company that he might own, has been commonly known as the disputed domain name.

- The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant has given no consent for the Respondent to use the Complainant's well-known CONDUENT mark. As decided in prior UDRP cases, passive use of the disputed domain name can constitute bad faith registration and use of the same. Moreover, the Respondent's employment of the name for a "phishing" scheme is clear evidence of bad faith registration and use. The Respondent's refusal to respond to the Complainant's demand letter regarding the disputed domain name is further evidence of bad faith. The Respondent's bad faith is also made clear by his registration of the disputed domain name through a WhoisProxy service (which lists the registrant as "On behalf of OWNER") in an attempt to conceal his true identity. B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings

In accordance with Policy paragraphs 4(a)(i)-(iii), the Panel may find for the Complainant and grant a transfer of the disputed dom