Maplebear Inc. DBA Instacart v. Domain Admin / Whois Privacy Corp.
Claim Number: FA1911001869699
Complainant is Maplebear Inc. DBA Instacart (“Complainant”), represented by Candice E. Kim of Greenberg Traurig, LLP, California, USA. Respondent is Domain Admin / Whois Privacy Corp. (“Respondent”), Bahamas.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <isntacart.com> (‘the Domain Name’), registered with Internet Domain Service BS Corp.; Internet Domain Service BS Corp.
The undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Dawn Osborne as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on November 4, 2019; the Forum received payment on November 4, 2019.
On November 06, 2019, Internet Domain Service BS Corp.; Internet Domain Service BS Corp confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <isntacart.com> domain name is registered with Internet Domain Service BS Corp.; Internet Domain Service BS Corp and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Internet Domain Service BS Corp.; Internet Domain Service BS Corp has verified that Respondent is bound by the Internet Domain Service BS Corp.; Internet Domain Service BS Corp 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 November 8, 2019, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of November 29, 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@isntacart.com. Also on November 8, 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 December 3, 2019, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Dawn Osborne 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
The Complainant’s contentions can be summarized as follows:
The Complainant is the owner of the trademark INSTACART registered, inter alia, in the USA for grocery delivery services with first use recorded as 2012.
The Domain Name registered in 2018 is confusingly similar to the Complainant’ mark merely transposing the letters ‘n’ and ‘t’ which does not prevent confusing similarity.
The Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, is not commonly known by it and is not authorized by the Complainant. Typosquatting is also an indication of lack of rights or legitimate interests in a Domain Name.
The Domain Name has been pointed to pay per click links which compete with the Complainant, sites that prompt users to install potentially harmful programs and to a phishing web site that mimics a Microsoft support page. These uses are not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.
The Domain Name has been registered and used in bad faith. Respondent intentionally attracts Internet users to web sites including competing ones for commercial gain and phishing and malware sites by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark, thereby disrupting the Complainant’s web site. Typosquatting is bad faith per se. The Respondent has used a privacy services and did not reply to the Complainant’s cease and desist letter.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
The Complainant is the owner of the trademark INSTACART registered, inter alia, in the USA for grocery delivery services with first use recorded as 2012.
The Domain Name registered in 2018 has been used to point to competing pay per click links and phishing/malware sites.
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 requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred:
(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, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules 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. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at ¶ 4.3; see also 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”).
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Domain Name consists of a sign confusingly similar to the Complainant’s INSTACART mark (registered in the USA for grocery delivery services with first use recorded as 2012) merely transposing two letters, an ‘n’ and a ‘t’, and adding the gTLD “.com.”
The Panel agrees that misspellings such as transposition of two letters does not distinguish the Domain Name from the Complainant's trademark pursuant to the Policy. See Capital One Financial Corp. v. Huang Li Technology Corp c/o Dynadot, FA 1620197 (Forum June 16, 2015) (finding confusing similarity where the respondent misspelled the word “bank” by transposing the letters “a” and “n,” attached the gTLD “.com,” and eliminated spacing with respect to the CAPITAL ONE BANK mark to create the <capitalonebnak.com> domain name.).
The gTLD “.com” does not serve to distinguish the Domain Name from the Complainant’s mark. See Red Hat Inc. v. Haecke, FA 726010 (Forum July 24, 2006) (concluding that the redhat.org domain name is identical to the complainant's red hat mark because the mere addition of the TLD was insufficient to differentiate the disputed domain name from the mark).
Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar for the purposes of the Policy with a mark in which the Complainant has rights.
As such the Panel holds that Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been satisfied.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant has not authorized the use of its mark. The Respondent has not answered this Complaint and there is no evidence or reason to suggest the Respondent is, in fact, commonly known by the Domain Name. See Alaska Air Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines v. Song Bin, FA1408001574905 (Forum September 17, 2014) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name as demonstrated by the WHOIS information and based on the fact that the complainant had not licensed or authorized the respondent to use its ALASKA AIRLINES mark).
Phishing cannot be good faith use. See Bittrex, Inc. v. Domain Privacy Services, FA 1786849 (Forum June 15, 2018) (“Using a disputed domain name to operate an FFDNS scheme and distribute malicious software or phish for users’ information is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”).
There is evidence of use of the Domain Name to point to malware which cannot be bona fide offering of goods or services or a noncommercial legitimate fair use. See Snap Inc. v. Domain Admin / Whois Privacy Corp., FA 1735300 (Forum July 14, 2017) (“Use of a disputed domain name to offer malicious software does not constitute a bona fide offering or a legitimate use per Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) & (iii).”)
Further, redirection to a website that competes with a complainant is not a bona fide offering of good or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See Glaxo Group Ltd. v. WWW Zban, FA 203164 (Forum Dec. 1, 2003) (finding that the respondent was not using the domain name within the parameters of Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii) because the respondent used the domain name to take advantage of the complainant's mark by diverting Internet users to a competing commercial site).
Typosquatting can provide additional evidence that a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name. See Macy’s Inc. and its subsidiary Macy’s West Stores, Inc. v. chen wenjie c/o Dynadot Privacy, FA1404001552918 (Forum May 21, 2014) (“Respondent’s disputed domain names are typosquatted versions of Complainant’s registered mark. Typosquatting shows a lack of rights or legitimate interests.”).
As such the Panelist finds that the Respondent does not have rights or a legitimate interest in the Domain Name and that the Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
The Respondent has not answered this Complaint or explained why it should be allowed to register a domain name containing a sign confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark.
Phishing schemes are bad faith registration and use. See Klabzuba Oil & Gas, Inc. v. LAKHPAT SINGH BHANDARI, FA 1506001625750 (Forum July 17, 2015).
Further it appears that the Domain Name has been pointed to malware in an attempt to disrupt the business of the Complainant which is also bad faith registration and use. See Twitter, Inc. v. Kiribati Media / Kiribati 200 Media Limited, FA1502001603444 (Forum Mar. 19, 2015) (“Using the disputed domain name to download malicious software into unsuspecting viewers’ computers evidences Respondent’s bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
The Domain Name seeks to take advantage of the situation where Internet users may make a typographical error. Typosquatting itself is evidence of relevant bad faith registration and use. See Diners Club int'l Ltd. v. Domain Admin ****** It's all in the name ******, FA 156839 (Forum June 23, 2003) (registering a domain name in the hope that Internet users will mistype the Complainant’s mark and be taken to the Respondent’s site is registration and use in bad faith). Typosquatting also indicates the Respondent had knowledge of the Complainant and its rights. See InfoSpace, Inc. v. Greiner, FA 227653 (Forum Mar. 8, 2004) (“Respondent’s domain name is a simple and popular variation of a trademark commonly used by typosquatters …Such a domain name evidences actual knowledge of the underlying mark prior to the registration of the domain name, and as Respondent failed to submit any evidence to counter this inferrence [sic], Respondent’s actions evidence bad faith registration of the disputed domain name.”).
Use for competing pay per click links also indicates bad faith being disruptive of the Complainant’s business and diverting customers for commercial gain and can indicate actual knowledge of the Complainant and its business. See American Council on Education and GED Testing Service LLC v. Anthony Williams, FA1760954 (Forum January 8, 2018) (“Respondent’s hosting of links to Complainant’s competitors demonstrates bad faith registration and use of the <geddiploma.org> domain name pursuant to Policy 4(b)(iii)”); see also Capital One Financial Corp. v. DN Manager / Whois-Privacy.Net Ltd, FA1504001615034 (Forum June 4, 2015) (holding that the respondent’s use of the <capitaloneonebank.com> domain name to display links to the complainant’s competitors, such as Bank of America, Visa, Chase and American Express constituted bad faith pursuant to Policy 4(b)(iv)); see also University of Rochester v. Park HyungJin, FA1410001587458 (Forum Dec. 9, 2014) (where the Panel inferred Respondent’s actual knowledge based on Respondent’s use of the domain name to promote links related to the same field as where Complainant’s mark is used.).
As such, the Panel holds that the Complainant has made out its case that the Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith and has satisfied the third limb of the Policy under ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <isntacart.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Dawn Osborne, Panelist
Dated: December 3, 2019
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page