Yahoo Inc. v. Martin Lewis
Claim Number: FA2203001986924
Complainant is Yahoo Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Joseph C. Daniels-Salamanca of Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, California, USA. Respondent is Martin Lewis (“Respondent”), Massachusetts, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <yahoophonenumber.net>, (‘the Domain Name’) registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.
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 March 4, 2022; the Forum received payment on March 4, 2022.
On March 7, 2022, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <yahoophonenumber.net> 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 March 10, 2022, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 30, 2022 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@yahoophonenumber.net. Also on March 10, 2022, 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 April 5, 2022 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 mark YAHOO! registered, inter alia, in the USA for internet search services with first use recorded as 1994. It owns yahoo.com.
The Domain Name registered in 2017 is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark removing its exclamation mark and adding only the generic term “phone number” and the gTLD “.net” none of which prevents such confusing similarity.
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, is not commonly known by them and is not authorized by the Complainant.
The Domain Name has been used for a site purporting to offer customer services relating to the Complainant using the Complainant’s trade mark in its masthead. This is registration and use in bad faith diverting and confusing Internet users designed to disrupt the Complainant’s business in full knowledge of the Complainant and its rights for likely phishing purposes.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
The Complainant is the owner of the mark YAHOO! registered, inter alia, in the USA for Internet search services with first use recorded as 1994. It owns yahoo.com.
The Domain Name registered in 2017 has been used for a site purporting to offer customer services relating to the Complainant using the Complainant’s mark in its masthead for probable phishing purposes.
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 Domain Name in this Complaint combines the Complainant’s YAHOO! mark (registered in the USA for Internet search services with first use recorded as 1994) without its exclamation mark, the generic term ‘phone number’ and the gTLD “.net”.
The addition of a generic term and a gTLD does not negate confusing similarity between a domain name and a trade mark contained within it. See Wiluna Holdings LLC v. Edna Sherman, FA 1652781 (Forum Jan. 22, 2016) (Finding the addition of a generic term and gTLD insufficient to distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark under Policy 4(a)(i).). Nor does the removal of an exclamation mark. Mrs. World Pageants, Inc. v. Crown Promotions, FA 94321 (Forum Apr. 24, 2000) (finding that punctuation is not significant in determining the similarity of a domain name and mark).
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a mark in which the Complainant has rights for the purpose of the Policy.
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 Sept. 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). The Domain Name has been used for commercial purposes which is not legitimate noncommercial fair use.
The Domain Name appears to be being used on a site which uses the Complainant’s mark in its masthead for a likely phishing scheme. This is deceptive and confusing and amounts to passing off. As such it cannot amount to the bona fide offering of goods and services. See DaVita Inc. v. Cynthia Rochelo, FA 1738034 (Forum July 20, 2017) (finding that ‘Passing off in furtherance of a phishing scheme is not considered a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use’). See Ripple Labs Inc. v. Jessie McKoy / Ripple Reserve Fund, FA 1790949 (Forum July 9, 2018) (finding the respondent did not use the domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services per Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or for a legitimate non-commercial or fair use per Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) where the website resolving from the disputed domain name featured the complainant’s mark).
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
Diverting Internet users for commercial gain and impersonating a complainant by use of a complainant’s mark in a likely phishing scheme as found in this case is confusing and disruptive and evinces bad faith registration and use. See LoanDepot.com, LLC v. Kaolee (Kay) Vang-Thao, FA1762308 (Forum Jan. 9, 2018) (Finding that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to offer competing loan services disrupts Complainant’s business under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)); See also AT&T Corp. v. RealTime Internet.com Inc., D2001-1487 (WIPO May 1, 2002) (“[U]se of domain names to sell Complainant’s goods and services without Complainant's authority . . . is bad faith use of a confusingly similar domain name.”); See also Am. Univ. v. Cook, FA 208629 (Forum Dec. 22, 2003) (“Registration and use of a domain name that incorporates another's mark with the intent to deceive Internet users in regard to the source or affiliation of the domain name is evidence of bad faith.”). See also Klabzuba Oil & Gas, Inc. v. LAKHPAT SINGH BHANDARI, FA1506001625750 (Forum July 17, 2015) (“Respondent uses the <klabzuba-oilgas.com> domain to engage in phishing, which means Respondent registered and uses the domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”). See Enterprise Holdings, Inc. v. I S / Internet Consulting Services Inc., FA 1785242 (Forum June 5, 2018) (“On its face, the use of a domain name that is confusingly similar to the mark of another in order to facilitate a phishing scheme cannot be described as either a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”).
As such, the Panelist believes 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 paragraph 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 <yahoophonenumber.net> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Dawn Osborne, Panelist
Dated: April 5, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page