WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Windrock Inc. v. WhoisGuard, Inc. / Aaron Scot Case No. DCO2018-0016 1. The Parties

Complainant is Windrock Inc. of Knoxville, Tennessee, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Morriss O’Bryant Compagni Cannon, PLLC, United States.

Respondent is WhoisGuard, Inc. of Panama / Aaron Scot of Williamsville, New York, United States. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar

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

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 31, 2018. On June 1, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On June 1, 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 Complainant on June 4, 2018 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amended Complaint on June 5, 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on June 6, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was June 26, 2018. On June 24, 2018, the Center received a communication from Respondent, in response to which the Center sent an email inviting the Parties to explore settlement negotiations. The Parties were not able to reach a settlement.

The Center appointed Frederick M. Abbott as the sole panelist in this matter on July 6, 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 the owner of registration for the service mark WINDROCK on the Principal Register of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), registration number 1,945,192, registration dated January 2, 1996, in international class (IC) 42, covering “research and development services in the field of monitoring internal combustion engines and analyzing oil”. Complainant also is owner of registration for a word and design trademark incorporating the term WINDROCK on the Principal Register of the USPTO, registration number 1,916,182, registration dated September 5, 1995, in IC 9, covering “monitoring and diagnostic instrument for internal combustion engines”.

Complainant provides research and development services in the field of monitoring internal combustion engines and analyzing oil, and sells related monitoring instrument systems. Complainant operates a commercial website at “www.m” at which it makes use of its trademark and logo.

According to the Registrar’s verification, Respondent is registrant of the disputed domain name. According to that verification, Respondent registered the disputed domain name on March 7, 2018.

The disputed domain name has been used in at least one attempt to fraudulently obtain a substantial payment from a customer of Complainant. This attempt to defraud involved use of an email displaying the correct name and address of Complainant, Complainant’s correct website address, and displaying an email address in the signature line ending with Complainant’s standard email format (using the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com”), but, originating from an email address incorporating the disputed domain name, [***]@, for which a reply was requested. The party seeking to defraud the customer relied on the likelihood that the recipient of the email would fail to notice the difference between Complainant’s “.com” email address and the disputed domain name’s “.co” address when receiving and responding to fraudulent payment instructions.

The disputed domain name otherwise was used to direct Internet users to a nondescript site “under maintenance” webpage.

The registration agreement between Respondent and the Registrar subjects Respondent to dispute settlement under the Policy. The Policy requires that domain name registrants submit to a mandatory admi