Smart Ecosystem, Inc. d/b/a Remotasks v. Netlify Inc / Whois Agent
Claim Number: FA2103001937732
Complainant is Smart Ecosystem, Inc. d/b/a Remotasks ("Complainant"), represented by David M. Kelly of Kelly IP, LLP, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is Netlify Inc / Whois Agent ("Respondent"), California, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <remotasker.com>, registered with Name.com, Inc.
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.
David E. Sorkin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on March 23, 2021; the Forum received payment on March 23, 2021.
On March 24, 2021, Name.com, Inc. confirmed by email to the Forum that the <remotasker.com> domain name is registered with Name.com, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Name.com, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Name.com, Inc. 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 March 29, 2021, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 19, 2021 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via email to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@remotasker.com. Also on March 29, 2021, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the email 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 April 25, 2021, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed David E. Sorkin 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 operates an online platform that provides users with training and work assignments related to data identification and analysis. Complainant states that it actively advertises and promotes this platform in the United States and elsewhere; that it has more than 50,000 registered users; and that its Facebook page has more than 45,000 followers. Complainant has used the REMOTASKS trademark and <remotasks.com> domain name in connection with these services since 2017. Complainant owns trademark registrations for REMOTASKS in various jurisdictions, including a United States trademark registration issued in February 2020 for REMOTASKS in standard character form.
Respondent registered the disputed domain name <remotasker.com> in November 2020. The domain name is being used for a website that extensively copies from and is substantially identical to Complainant's REMOTASKS website, and that solicits users to enter various personal and confidential information. In late March 2021, Complainant demanded that this copycat website be terminated. Respondent (apparently a hosting provider acting on behalf of an unidentified customer) acknowledged that the website was a "blatant copy" of Complainant's site and stated that it had taken the site offline. Since that time, the disputed domain name has been used to display a page composed of what appear to be unrelated pay-per-click links. Complainant states that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and has not been authorized to use Complainant's mark.
Complainant contends on the above grounds that the disputed domain name <remotasker.com> is confusingly similar to its REMOTASKS mark; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was 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."
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 Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, § 4.3 (3d ed. 2017), available at http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (dismissing complaint where complainant failed to "produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations").
The disputed domain name <remotasker.com> incorporates Complainant's registered REMOTASKS trademark, substituting "er" for the final letter "s" and appending the ".com" top-level domain. These alterations do not substantially diminish the similarity between the domain name and Complainant's mark. See, e.g., Regions Bank v. HGS Centre, FA 1930169 (Forum Mar. 1, 2021) (finding <regions-banker.com> confusingly similar to REGIONS BANK and REGIONS); Logitech International S.A. v. Lim Chin Hoe / Dataweb Solutions Pte Ltd DSN, FA 1881969 (Forum Mar. 1, 2020) (finding <logitecher.com> confusingly similar to LOGITECH). The Panel considers the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights.
Under the Policy, the Complainant must first make a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and then the burden shifts to the Respondent to come forward with concrete evidence of such rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Productions, Inc. v. Entertainment Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006).
The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's registered mark without authorization. It has been used for a website mimicking Complainant's site, presumably for the purpose of phishing for users' personal and confidential information; and to display pay-per-click links. Such uses do not give rise to rights or legitimate interests under the Policy. See, e.g., Opportunity Financial, LLC v. Ivan Nikitin, FA 1926980 (Forum Jan. 29, 2021) (finding lack of rights or interests arising from website mimicking complainant's website); Regions Bank v. HGS Centre, supra (finding lack of rights or interests arising from phishing website); Chevron Intellectual Property LLC v. Chleo Temple, FA 1731844 (Forum June 16, 2017) (finding lack of rights or interests arising from fraudulent website attempting to pass off as complainant, or subsequent use for pay-per-click link portal).
Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name, and Respondent has failed to come forward with any evidence of such rights or interests. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has sustained its burden of proving that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
Finally, Complainant must show that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Under paragraph 4(b)(iii) of the Policy, bad faith may be shown by evidence that Respondent registered the disputed domain name "primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor." Under paragraph 4(b)(iv), bad faith may be shown by evidence that "by using the domain name, [Respondent] 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 or service on [Respondent's] web site or location."
Respondent registered a domain name incorporating Complainant's registered mark without authorization and used it what appears to have been a fraudulent phishing website that included substantial content copied from Complainant's website. Such conduct is indicative of bad faith registration and use under the Policy. See, e.g., Opportunity Financial, LLC v. Ivan Nikitin, supra (finding bad faith registration and use in similar circumstances); Chevron Intellectual Property LLC v. Chleo Temple, supra (same). The Panel so finds.
Having considered the three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <remotasker.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
David E. Sorkin, Panelist
Dated: April 26, 2021
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page