Docker, Inc. v. Steve Singh / Docker, Inc.
Claim Number: FA1906001846947
Complainant is Docker, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Christopher J. Palermo of Hickman Palermo Becker Bingham LLP, California, USA. Respondent is Steve Singh / Docker, Inc. (“Respondent”), USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <dockerheart.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.
The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Charles A. Kuechenmeister
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on June 7, 2019; the Forum received payment on June 7, 2019.
On June 10, 2019, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <dockerheart.com> domain name (the Domain Name) is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, LLC registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On June 17, 2019, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint setting a deadline of July 8, 2019 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@dockerheart.com. Also on June 17, 2019, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts.
Having received no response from Respondent, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On July 12, 2019, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Charles A. Kuechenmeister as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.
Complainant requests that the Domain Name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant originated and distributes the world’s most popular proprietary and open source software products. Complainant has rights in the DOCKER mark through its registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USTPO”) (Reg. No. 4,487,668 registered on February 25, 2014.) Respondent’s Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s DOCKER mark because it incorporates the mark in its entirety, merely adding the descriptive term “heart” and the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).
Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the Domain Name. Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name and is not authorized or permitted to use Complainant’s mark in any fashion. Additionally, Respondent is not using the Domain Name in connection to a bona fide offering of goods or services or making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of it in that the web site resolving from it is an exact copy of one of Complainant’s own web sites, and Respondent is using it to create the appearance that it offers to sell Complainant’s software products. Additionally, Respondent uses the Domain Name to attempt to confuse Internet users and divert them to its web site.
Respondent registered and uses the Domain Name in bad faith. Respondent attempts to attract Internet users, for commercial gain, by creating a likelihood of confusion and implying an affiliation between the disputed domain name and Complainant’s mark. Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant when it registered the Domain Name and attempts to trade on the reputation of Complainant’s mark.
B. Respondent
Respondent did not submit a Response in this proceeding.
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable."
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy provides that in order to obtain an order cancelling or transferring a domain name, Complainant must prove each of the following three elements:
(1) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
(2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules the Panel will decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”) at ¶ 4.3, eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (“Because Complainant did not produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations [. . .] the Panel finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint”).
The Panel finds as follows with respect to the matters at issue in this proceeding:
The DOCKER mark was registered to Complainant with the USPTO (Reg. No. 4,487,668) on April 4, 2014. Complaint Exhibit 3. Registration of a mark with the USPTO is sufficient to establish a complainant’s rights in that mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Liberty Global Logistics, LLC v. damilola emmanuel / tovary services limited, FA 1738536 (Forum Aug. 4, 2017) (“Registration of a mark with the USPTO sufficiently establishes the required rights in the mark for purposes of the Policy.”).
Respondent’s Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s DOCKER mark as it incorporates the mark in its entirety, merely adding the generic and descriptive term “heart,” and the “.com” gTLD. These changes are not sufficient to distinguish the Domain Name from Complainant’s mark. Addition of descriptive or generic terms and a gTLD to a fully formed mark does not distinguish the domain name from a complainant’s mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Kurk Wasserman Consulting, L.L.C. v. ming li, FA 1782613 (Forum May 29, 2018) (“Respondent’s <lilashserum.us> domain name is confusingly similar to the LILASH mark as Respondent merely adds the descriptive term “serum” and the “.us” ccTLD to the mark.”), Starbucks Corporation d/b/a Starbucks Coffee Company v. Waseem A Ali / Micron Web Services, FA 1785616 (Forum June 8, 2018) (finding the <starbucksreal.com> domain name to be confusingly similar to the STARBUCKS mark, as “the addition of the generic term ‘real’ to Complainant's mark does not distinguish the Domain Name from Complainant's trade mark pursuant to the Policy.”), Dell Inc. v. Protection of Private Person / Privacy Protection, FA 1681432 (Forum Aug. 1, 2016) (“A TLD (whether a gTLD, sTLD or ccTLD) is disregarded under a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis because domain name syntax requires TLDs. Likewise, the absence of spaces must be disregarded under a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis because domain name syntax prohibits them.”). Finally, the WIPO Overview 3.0 at ¶ 1.7, states that the test for confusing similarity “typically involves a side-by-side comparison of the domain name and the textual components of the relevant trademark to assess whether the mark is recognizable within the domain name.” Notwithstanding the changes described above, Complainant’s mark is clearly recognizable within the Domain Name, and this establishes its confusing similarity to Complainant’s mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
For the reasons set forth above, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the DOCKER mark, in which Complainant has substantial and demonstrated rights.
If a complainant makes a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), the burden of production shifts to the respondent to come forward with evidence that it has rights or legitimate interests in it. Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) (“Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests”). If a respondent fails to come forward with such evidence, the complainant’s prima facie evidence will be sufficient to establish that respondent lacks such rights or legitimate interests. If the respondent does come forward with such evidence, the Panel must assess the evidence in its entirety. At all times, the burden of proof remains on the complainant. WIPO Overview 3.0, at ¶ 2.1.
Policy ¶ 4(c) lists the following three nonexclusive circumstances, any one of which if proven can demonstrate a respondent’s rights or legitimate interests in a domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii):
(i) before any notice to respondent of the dispute, respondent has used or has made demonstrable preparations to use the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or
(ii) respondent (as an individual, business or other organization) has been commonly known by the domain name, even if respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
(iii) respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.
Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name because (i) Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use the DOCKER mark, (ii) Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name, and (iii) Respondent is not using the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or for a legitimate noncommercial or other fair use because it resolves to a web site that passes off as and impersonates one of Complainant’s web sites and purports to sell Complainant products. These allegations are supported by competent evidence.
The information furnished to the Forum by the registrar lists the registrant of the Domain Name as “Steve Singh,” and the registrant organization as Docker, Inc. Complainant states that this information is false. Steve Singh is Complainant’s Chief Executive Officer and he never registers domains in the name of an officer or employee of the company. Further, the email address given for the registrant is an “@qq.com address, which he does not own or control. Complainant alleges upon information and belief that the true registrants are unknown persons in China because email servers answering to the “qq” domain are known to be managed in China. Complainant has specific competence to make these allegations and the Panel takes them as true. In any event, there is no evidence that whoever did register the Domain Name might be commonly known by that name, and the Panel finds that the true registrant of the Domain Name is not commonly known by that name. All further references to “Respondent” in this Decision mean and refer to the person who actually registered the Domain Name and not to Steve Singh.
Complainant states that the Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and it has never licensed or authorized Respondent to use its mark. Complainant has specific competence to make this statement, and it is unchallenged by any evidence before the Panel. In the absence of evidence that a respondent is authorized to use a complainant’s mark in a domain name or that a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name, the respondent may be presumed to lack rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. IndyMac Bank F.S.B. v. Eshback, FA 830934 (Forum Dec. 7, 2006) (finding that the respondent failed to establish rights and legitimate interests in the <emitmortgage.com> domain name as the respondent was not authorized to register domain names featuring the complainant’s mark and failed to submit evidence that it is commonly known by the domain name), Indeed, Inc. v. Ankit Bhardwaj / Recruiter, FA 1739470 (Forum Aug. 3, 2017) (”Respondent lacks both rights and legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant’s trademark in any capacity and, as discussed below, there are no Policy ¶ 4(c) circumstances from which the Panel might find that Respondent has rights or interests in respect of the at-issue domain name.”).
Complaint Exhibit 4 is a screenshot of the web site resolving from the Domain Name. The top of the page displays the name dockerhub, another of Complainant’s registered marks (USPTO Reg. No. 4,747,364, registered April 7, 2015) Complaint Exhibit 3), and a DOCKER logo. The web site is virtually an exact copy of Complainant’s web site at <dockerhub.com> (Complaint Exhibit 4A), using the same color scheme, font, patterns, layout, and look and feel. It has a false “© 2019 Docker Inc. All rights reserved” note at the bottom of the last page. The products ostensibly offered for sale on this web site appear to be exactly the same as those on Complainant’s dockerhub web site.
Complaint Exhibit 5 is a screenshot of a sign-in page provided by Respondent, which prompts existing Docker customers to enter their user ID, password and email address. The site is very likely to accomplish exactly what it was designed for, i.e., cause the visitor to believe that it is sponsored or endorsed by Complainant. Respondent is attempting to pass off as Complainant to deceive potential customers of Complainant and phish for sensitive personal and private information from them. Use of a confusingly similar domain name to attempt to confuse internet users into believing that the respondent is the complainant, and to phish for sensitive, private information is not a bona fide offering of goods or services as contemplated by Policy ¶4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use as contemplated by Policy ¶4(c)(iii). DaVita Inc. v. Cynthia Rochelo, FA 1738034 (Forum July 20, 2017) (”Passing off in furtherance of a phishing scheme is not considered a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use.”).
Respondent’s site is clearly commercial in nature. Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name.
Complainant has made its prima facie case. On the evidence presented, and in the absence of any evidence from Respondent, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name.
Policy ¶ 4(b) sets forth a nonexclusive list of four circumstances, any one of which if proven would be evidence of bad faith use and registration of a domain name. They are as follows:
(i) respondent has registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant which is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of respondent’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name;
(ii) respondent has registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct;
(iii) respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) by using the domain name, respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to respondent’s web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of respondent’s web site or location or of a product of service on respondent’s web site or location.
The evidence of Respondent’s use of the Domain Name set forth above in the rights or legitimate interests analysis also supports a finding of bad faith use and registration of the Domain Name, based upon the foregoing grounds articulated in the Policy and upon additional grounds adopted by UDRP panels over the years. First, Respondent is clearly using the Domain Name to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its web site by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of its web site. This fits squarely within the circumstances articulated by Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) and is clear evidence of bad faith registration and use. Bittrex, Inc. v. Wuxi Yilian LLC, FA 1760517 (Forum Dec. 27, 2017) (finding bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where “Respondent registered and uses the <lbittrex.com> domain name in bad faith by directing Internet users to a website that mimics Complainant’s own website in order to confuse users into believing that Respondent is Complainant, or is otherwise affiliated or associated with Complainant.”).
Second, Respondent registered and is using the confusingly similar Domain Name to disrupt Complainant’s business by diverting Internet users seeking Complainant to its own web site, where it impersonates Complainant and appears to offer the same services as Complainant. By posing as Complainant, Respondent is effectively competing with Complainant and this plus its phishing scheme is necessarily disruptive of Complainant’s business. This conduct thus fits within the circumstances articulated by Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). ZIH Corp. v. ou yang lin q, FA1761403 (Forum Dec. 29, 2017) (Finding bad faith where Respondent used the infringing domain name to disrupt Complainant’s business by diverting Internet users from Complainant’s website to Respondent’s website where it offered competing printer products), Citadel LLC and its related entity, KCG IP Holdings, LLC v. Joel Lespinasse / Radius Group, FA1409001579141 (Forum Oct. 15, 2014) (“Here, the Panel finds evidence of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) bad faith as Respondent has used the confusingly similar domain name to promote its own financial management and consulting services in competition with Complainant.”).
Third, it is evident from the world-wide notoriety of Complainant’s DOCKER mark, from Respondent’s using that mark in the Domain Name, and from Respondent’s web site impersonating Complainant that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant and its mark when, according to the WHOIS report submitted as Complaint Exhibit 1, it registered the Domain Name in April 2019. Policy ¶ 4(b) recognizes that mischief can assume many different forms and takes an open-ended approach to bad faith, listing some examples without attempting to enumerate all its varieties. Worldcom Exchange, Inc. v. Wei.com, Inc., WIPO Case No. D-2004-0955 (January 5, 2005). The non-exclusive nature of Policy ¶ 4(b) allows for consideration of additional factors in an analysis for bad faith, and actual knowledge of a complainant’s rights in a mark prior to registering an identical or confusingly similar domain name has often been held to be evidence of bad faith registration and use for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). Univision Comm'cns Inc. v. Norte, FA 1000079 (Forum Aug. 16, 2007) (rejecting the respondent's contention that it did not register the disputed domain name in bad faith since the panel found that the respondent had knowledge of the complainant's rights in the UNIVISION mark when registering the disputed domain name).
Also, Respondent falsely and fraudulently registered the Domain Name in the name of Complainant’s CEO. Giving false registration information frustrates the purpose of the WHOIS system and obscures Respondent’s true identity. Again, the non-exclusive nature of Policy ¶ 4(b) allows for consideration of additional factors in an analysis for bad faith, and intentionally providing false information to a registrar about the identity of and contact information for the registrant has been held to constitute bad faith registration and use for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Zhang Biao Cao / Cao Zhang Biao / Zhang Biao / Cao Zhangbiao / Wang Li Hong / Li Hui, Case No. FA1711001758917 (Forum Dec. 20, 2017) (“Respondent’s use of multiple aliases and other false WHOIS information is calculated to frustrate the purposes of WHOIS and obscure registrant’s true identity, and this is further evidence of bad faith.”), Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Zhang Biao Cao / Cao Zhang Biao / Zhang Biao / Cao Zhangbiao / Wang Li Hong / Li Hui, Case No. FA1711001758917 (Forum Dec. 20, 2017) (“Respondent’s ubiquitous use of multiple aliases and false WHOIS information to obscure his true identity when registering the Disputed Domain Names, is further evidence of Respondent’s bad faith.”), Valero Energy Corporation and Valero Marketing and Supply Company v. Valero Syedi, Case No. FA1611001701231 (Forum Dec. 16, 2016) (“Complainant argues that Respondent’s use of false WHOIS information shows its attempt to hide its identity in a vain attempt to present itself as legitimate. Arrangement of WHOIS information in a dishonest manner has been found to constitute bad faith.”), Mars, Incorporated v. RaveClub Berlin, Case No. FA0106000097361 (Forum July 16, 2001) (providing false registration and contact information for infringing domain names evidenced Respondent’s bad faith), Home Director, Inc. v. HomeDirector, D2000-0111, (WIPO Apr. 11, 2000).
Finally, Respondent is using the confusingly similar Domain Name in connection with its scheme to trick site visitors into providing sensitive personal and private information about themselves and their banking relationships. This is a phishing scheme and qualifies on its own as evidence of bad faith registration and use. Again, given the nonexclusive, open-ended nature of Policy ¶ 4(b), passing oneself off as a complainant to phish for sensitive private information from others has often been held to evidence bad faith registration and use. Qatalyst Partners LP v. Devimore, FA 1393436 (Forum July 13, 2011) (finding that using the disputed domain name as an e-mail address to pass itself off as the complainant in a phishing scheme is evidence of bad faith registration and use), Lockheed Martin Corporation v. J.Pradeep Kumar / Lockheed India, FA 1806001794125 (Forum July 30, 2018) (“Under the circumstances presented here, and in particular considering Respondent's use of the disputed domain name, the Panel views it likely that Respondent registered and is using the domain name to impersonate Complainant as part of an attempted phishing scheme or other fraudulent enterprise.”).
For the reasons set forth above, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Complainant having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <dockerheart.com> Domain Name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Charles A. Kuechenmeister, Panelist
July 15, 2019
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page