Course Hero, Inc. v. Raj Chourasiya / rdtuniverse
Claim Number: FA2110001968143
Complainant is Course Hero, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Phillip Barengolts of Pattishall, McAuliffe, Newbury, Hilliard & Geraldson LLP, Illinois, USA. Respondent is Raj Chourasiya / rdtuniverse (“Respondent”), India.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <quillbotpro.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.
Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on October 7, 2021; the Forum received payment on October 7, 2021.
On October 8, 2021, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <quillbotpro.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 October 13, 2021, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of November 2, 2021 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@quillbotpro.com. Also on October 13, 2021, 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 November 7, 2021, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Paul M. DeCicco 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 contends as follows:
Complainant, Course Hero, Inc., provides an online artificial intelligence-based natural language generation product to assist writers.
Complainant has rights in the QUILLBOT mark through its registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”).
Respondent’s <quillbotpro.com> domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s QUILLBOT mark, merely adding the generic term “pro” and the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) to the mark.
Respondent registered and uses the <quillbotpro.com> domain name in bad faith. Respondent uses the disputed domain name to disrupt Complainant’s business, as the resolving website at the at-issue domain name is likely to create confusion among consumers as to the ownership and/or sponsorship of the disputed domain. The disputed domain also appears as though it will deliver the same or similar services that are offered by Complainant, but Respondent provides no such service. Additionally, Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the QUILLBOT mark.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant has rights in the QUILLBOT trademark through its registration of such mark with the USPTO.
Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and had not been authorized to use Complainant’s trademark in any capacity.
Respondent registered the at‑issue domain name after Complainant acquired rights in the QUILLBOT trademark.
Respondent uses the <quillbotpro.com> domain name pass itself off as Complainant and address a website purporting to offer Complainant’s products to site visitors.
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”).
The at-issue domain name is confusingly similar or identical to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.
Complainant shows that it has a USPTO registration for its QUILLBOT trademark. Complainant’s USPTO registration is sufficient to demonstrate Complainant’s rights in a mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Microsoft Corp. v. Burkes, FA 652743 (Forum Apr. 17, 2006) (“Complainant has established rights in the MICROSOFT mark through registration of the mark with the USPTO.”).
Respondent’s <quillbotpro.com> domain name contains Complainant’s QUILLBOT trademark followed by the term “pro” with all followed by a domain name-necessary top-level name, here “.com”. The slight differences between Respondent’s domain name and Complainant’s trademark are insufficient to distinguish the <quillbotpro.com> domain name from Complainant’s QUILLBOT trademark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent’s <quillbotpro.com> domain name is confusingly similar or identical to Complainant’s mark. See Wiluna Holdings, LLC v. Edna Sherman, FA 1652781 (Forum Jan. 22, 2016) (Finding the addition of a generic term and gTLD is insufficient in distinguishing a disputed domain name from a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).).
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. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006). Since Respondent failed to respond, Complainant’s prima facie showing acts conclusively.
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. See Navistar Int'l Corp. v. Rahmany, FA 150500 (Forum June 8, 2015) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by a disputed domain name where a complainant had not authorized that respondent to incorporate its mark in a domain name).
The WHOIS information for the at-issue domain name identifies the domain name’s registrant as “Raj Chourasiya / rdtuniverse” and the record before the Panel contains no evidence tending to prove that Respondent is commonly known by the <quillbotpro.com> domain name. The Panel therefore concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by the <quillbotpro.com> domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Braun Corp. v. Loney, FA 699652 (Forum July 7, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain names where the WHOIS information, as well as all other information in the record, gave no indication that the respondent was commonly known by the domain names, and the complainant had not authorized the respondent to register a domain name containing its registered mark).
Additionally, Respondent uses the confusingly similar <quillbotpro.com> domain name to address a website that mimics Complainant’s genuine website and purports to offer Complainant’s language related services to website visitors. Respondent’s use of the confusingly similar domain name in this manner indicates neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a non-commercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See ShipChain, Inc. v. 谢东东 / 谢东东, FA 1785189 (Forum June 21, 2018) (“The resolving webpages between Complainant’s and Respondent’s websites are virtually the same. Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name does not confer rights and legitimate interests under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii).”); see also, j2 Global Canada, Inc. and Landslide Technologies, Inc. v. VIJAY S KUMAR / STRATEGIC OUTSOURCING SERVICES PVT LTD, FA 1647718 (Forum Jan. 4, 2016) (finding that the disputed domain purports to offer for sale goods and services in the field of electronic marketing, which directly overlap with the services covered by Complainant’s registrations and offered by Complainant online, and therefore Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests through its competing use).
Given the forgoing, Complainant satisfies its initial burden and conclusively demonstrates Respondent’s lack of rights and lack of interests in respect of the at-issue domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Respondent’s <quillbotpro.com> domain name was registered and used in bad faith. As discussed below without limitation, bad faith circumstances are present and compel the Panel to conclude that Respondent acted in bad faith pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
Respondent uses its confusingly similar domain name to pass itself off as Complainant and thereby misdirect internet users seeking Complainant to Respondent’s lookalike <quillbotpro.com> website. There, Respondent further exploits the goodwill found in Complainant’s trademark by purporting to promote services offered by Complainant’s. However, when consumers attempt to use the services provided by Respondent’s bogus website, they find that no actual services are provided. Using the confusingly similar domain name to feign an affiliation between Complainant and Respondent when there is none so that Respondent may thereby inappropriately benefit demonstrates Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the at-issue domain name under both Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Artistic Pursuit LLC v. calcuttawebdevelopers.com, FA 894477 (Forum Mar. 8, 2007) (finding that the respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name, which displayed a website virtually identical to the complainant’s website, constituted bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)); see also Fitness International, LLC v. ALISTAIR SWODECK / VICTOR AND MURRAY, FA1506001623644 (Forum July 9, 2015) (“Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to operate a website that purports to offer health club related services such as fitness experts, fitness models, fitness venues, exercise programs, and personal training, all of which are the exact services offered by Complainant. Doing so causes customer confusion, disrupts Complainant’s business, and demonstrates Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).”); see additionally Amazon.com, Inc. v. Shafir, FA 196119 (Forum Nov. 10, 2003) (“As Respondent is using the domain name at issue in direct competition with Complainant, and giving the impression of being affiliated with or sponsored by Complainant, this circumstance qualifies as bad faith registration and use of the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).”).
Furthermore, Respondent registered <quillbotpro.com> knowing that Complainant had trademark rights in the QUILLBOT mark. Respondent’s prior knowledge is evident from the notoriety of Complainant’s trademark and from Respondent’s use of the <quillbotpro.com> domain name as discussed elsewhere herein. Respondent’s prior knowledge of Complainant's trademark further indicates that Respondent registered and used <quillbotpro.com> in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent had "actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name").
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <quillbotpro.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist
Dated: November 8, 2021
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page