Indeed, Inc. v. Ram Kc
Claim Number: FA2007001903039
Complainant is Indeed, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Ryan Masters of Indeed, Inc., Texas, United States. Respondent is Ram Kc (“Respondent”), Republic of Maldives .
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <indeedjobs1.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.
Richard Hill as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on July 6, 2020; the Forum received payment on July 6, 2020.
On July 7, 2020, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <indeedjobs1.com> 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 July 8, 2020, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 28, 2020 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@indeedjobs1.com. Also on July 8, 2020, 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. Respondent did however send an email to the Forum, see below.
On July 30, 2020, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Richard Hill 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 states that it provides a job site that helps companies hire employees and helps job seekers find employment opportunities. Complainant provides the world’s largest job site, with over 200 million unique visitors every month from over 60 different countries. Complainant asserts rights in the INDEED mark through its registration of the mark in multiple trademark agencies, including in the United States in 2006.
Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its mark, as the domain name incorporates the INDEED mark in its entirety and merely adds the generic/descriptive term “jobs” and the number “1” along with the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”). Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
According to Complainant, Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and Complainant has not authorized Respondent’s use of the INDEED mark. Additionally, Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, Respondent uses the domain name to divert Internet users to a website that offers competing services and a series of click-through links to third-party websites. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent uses the domain name to disrupt Complainant’s business by diverting Internet users to Respondent’s website to offer competing services and advertise competing hyperlinks. Additionally, Respondent registered the domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the INDEED mark. Finally, Respondent owns no trademark or intellectual property rights in the domain name, nor does the domain name consist of a legal name of or a name commonly used to identify Respondent. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. In its email to the Forum, Respondent states, in pertinent part (sic): “If you have problem [with the disputed domain name] we will close. Now I don't care this domain. … If you have any disturbance I will close it.”
For the reasons set forth below, the Panel will not make any findings of fact.
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.
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."
In the present case, the Panel finds the Respondent has consented to relinquish the disputed domain name and to transfer it to Complainant. In accordance with a general legal principle governing arbitrations as well as national court proceedings, this Panel holds that it cannot act nec ultra petita nec infra petita, that is, that it cannot issue a decision that would be either less than requested, nor more than requested by the parties. Since the requests of the parties in this case are identical, the Panel has no scope to do anything other than to recognize the common request, and it has no mandate to make findings of fact or of compliance (or not) with the Policy.
See Malev Hungarian Airlines, Ltd. v. Vertical Axis Inc., FA 212653 (Forum Jan. 13, 2004); see also Boehringer Ingelheim Int’l GmbH v. Modern Ltd. – Cayman Web Dev., FA 133625 (Forum Jan. 9, 2003) (transferring the domain name registration where the respondent stipulated to the transfer); see also Disney Enters., Inc. v. Morales, FA 475191 (Forum June 24, 2005) (“[U]nder such circumstances, where Respondent has agreed to comply with Complainant’s request, the Panel felt it to be expedient and judicial to forego the traditional UDRP analysis and order the transfer of the domain names.”).
For the reasons set forth above, the Panel will not analyze this element of the Policy.
For the reasons set forth above, the Panel will not analyze this element of the Policy.
For the reasons set forth above, the Panel will not analyze this element of the Policy.
Given the common request of the Parties, it is Ordered that the <indeedjobs1.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Richard Hill, Panelist
Dated: July 30, 2020
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page