Course Hero, Inc. v. DOMAIN SHIELD / REGISTRATION PRIVATE
Claim Number: FA2202001983379
Complainant is Course Hero, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Phillip Barengolts of Pattishall, McAuliffe, Newbury, Hilliard & Geraldson LLP, Illinois, USA. Respondent is DOMAIN SHIELD / REGISTRATION PRIVATE ("Respondent"), Canada.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <quillbotparaphrasing.com>, registered with eNom, 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.
David E. Sorkin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on February 7, 2022; the Forum received payment on February 7, 2022.
On February 7, 2022, eNom, LLC confirmed by email to the Forum that the <quillbotparaphrasing.com> domain name is registered with eNom, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. eNom, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the eNom, 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 February 10, 2022, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 2, 2022 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@quillbotparaphrasing.com. Also on February 10, 2022, 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 March 7, 2022, 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 provides an online artificial intelligence-based natural language generation product in the United States, India, Canada, Australia, the United Kingdom, and the European Union. Complainant and its predecessor in interest have used the QUILLBOT mark in connection with this product since 2017. Complainant owns a United States trademark registration for QUILLBOT in standard character form, issued in February 2021, and has trademark applications pending in other jurisdictions.
Respondent registered the disputed domain name <quillbotparaphrasing.com> in June 2021. Complainant alleges that Respondent is using the disputed domain name for commercial gain by redirecting users to Complainant's own website. Complainant states that Complainant is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and has not been authorized, licensed, or otherwise permitted to use Complainant's mark.
Complainant contends on the above grounds that the disputed domain name <quillbotparaphrasing.com> is confusingly similar to its QUILLBOT 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 <quillbotparaphrasing.com> incorporates Complainant's registered QUILLBOT trademark, adding the descriptive term "paraphrasing" and the ".com" top-level domain. These additions do not substantially diminish the similarity between the domain name and Complainant's mark. See, e.g., Course Hero, Inc. v. Raj Chourasiya / rdtuniverse, FA 1968143 (Forum Nov. 8, 2021) (finding <quillbotpro.com> confusingly similar to QUILLBOT); Chegg, Inc. v. PeterNjenga, FA 1974403 (Forum Dec. 27, 2021) (finding <cheggwriters.com> confusingly similar to CHEGG); Microsoft Corp. v. Duan Xiang Wang, FA 1269201 (Forum Aug. 11, 2009) (finding <microsofttranslator.com> confusingly similar to MICROSOFT). 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, and its only apparent use has been to redirect users to Complainant's own website, presumably for Respondent's commercial gain. Such use does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests under the Policy. See, e.g., Walmart Inc. v. Carolina Rodrigues / Fundacion Comercio Electronico, FA 1909146 (Forum Sept. 27, 2020) (finding lack of interests in similar circumstances); HRB Innovations, Inc. v. Carolina Rodrigues / Fundacion Comercio Electronico, FA 1880758 (Forum Feb. 28, 2020) (same); Staples, Inc. & Staples the Office Superstores, LLC v. FCS Holdings Corp / Carolina Rodrigues, FA 1428752 (Forum Apr. 4, 2012) (same).
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 used a privacy registration service to register a domain name that combines Complainant's registered mark with a term that describes a function of Complainant's product, and is using the domain name to redirect Internet users to Complainant's website, without Complainant's consent and allegedly for Respondent's commercial gain. The disputed domain name redirects users to a URL containing Complainant's domain name and what appears to be a referral serial number, supporting an interference that the purpose of this redirection is to generate revenue for Respondent in the form of affiliate commissions. Such conduct is indicative of bad faith registration and use under the Policy. See, e.g., HRB Innovations, Inc. v. Carolina Rodrigues / Fundacion Comercio Electronico, supra (finding bad faith in similar circumstances); Staples, Inc. & Staples the Office Superstores, LLC v. FCS Holdings Corp / Carolina Rodrigues, 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 <quillbotparaphrasing.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
David E. Sorkin, Panelist
Dated: March 7, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page