Chegg Inc. v. Balticsea LLC
Claim Number: FA1503001609883
Complainant is Chegg Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by CitizenHawk, Inc., California, USA. Respondent is Balticsea LLC (“Respondent”), Russian Federation.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <cheeggs.com> and <chregg.com>, registered with Tucows.
The undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his or her 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 March 16, 2015; the Forum received payment on March 16, 2015.
On March 17, 2015, Tucows confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <cheeggs.com> and <chregg.com> domain names are registered with Tucows and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Tucows has verified that Respondent is bound by the Tucows 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 April 23, 2015, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of May 13, 2015 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@cheeggs.com and postmaster@chregg.com. Also on April 23, 2015, 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 May 18, 2015, 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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant states that it is an online textbook rental service (both in physical and digital formats), also offering homework assistance, scholarships, course review and internship posting for students in high school and college. It has millions of active members and its services are well known. It was founded in 2001 and owns several registered trademarks for the name CHEGG, dating back to 2007.
Complainant alleges that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to its marks because they differ from the mark only through the addition or removal of one character, or having an incorrect character, or two juxtaposed characters. This is a classic example of typosquatting. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position. The disputed domain names were registered in 2009 and 2010.
According to Complainant, Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name because it has not been commonly known by the disputed domain name; and Respondent is not sponsored by or legitimately affiliated with Complainant in any way. Respondent is using the disputed domain names to redirect unsuspecting Internet users to a website featuring generic links to third-party websites some of which directly compete with Complainant's business. Presumably, Respondent receives pay-per-click fees from these linked websites. As such, Respondent is not using the disputed domain names to provide a bona fide offering of goods or services as allowed under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use as allowed under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
Complainant alleges that Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith for the following reasons. Respondent has listed the domain names for sale. Further, Respondent is using the disputed domain names to generate click through revenue by resolving the disputed domain names to web sites providing links to products and services that compete with those of Complainant. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
Further, says Complainant, Respondent is a recalcitrant, serial cybersquatter / typosquatter. Previous panels have agreed that multiple prior UDRP decisions are sufficient evidence indicating a respondent’s bad faith use and registration. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant has registered trademarks for various marks that include the name CHEGG, dating back to 2007. Its marks are well-known in its line of business.
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark.
The disputed domain names were registered in 2009 and 2010.
Respondent is using the disputed domain names to resolve to web sites containing commercial links to products and services that compete with those of Complainant.
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(e), 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 and inferences set forth in the Complaint as true unless the evidence is clearly contradictory. See Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 31, 2000) (holding that the respondent’s failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of the complaint to be deemed true); see also Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009 (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000) (“In the absence of a response, it is appropriate to accept as true all allegations of the Complaint.”).
It is clear that the disputed domain names, consisting of misspellings of the Complainant’s trademark, are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark in the sense of the Policy. See Victoria’s Secret v. Zuccarini, FA 95762 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 18, 2000) (finding that, by misspelling words and adding letters to words, a respondent does not create a distinct mark but nevertheless renders the domain name confusingly similar to the complainant’s marks); see also Dow Jones & Co., Inc. v. Powerclick, Inc., D2000-1259 (WIPO Dec. 1, 2000) (holding that the deliberate introduction of errors or changes, such as the addition of a fourth “w” or the omission of periods or other such “generic” typos do not change respondent’s infringement on a core trademark held by the complainant); Reuters Ltd. v. Global Net 2000, Inc., D2000-0441 (WIPO July 13, 2000) (finding that a domain name which differs by only one letter from a trademark has a greater tendency to be confusingly similar to the trademark where the trademark is highly distinctive).
Respondent is using the disputed domain names to point to a website that offers services that compete with those of Complainant.
The Panel finds that Respondent is redirecting Internet users interested in the Complainant’s products and services to its own website for commercial gain and that such use does not fall within the parameters of a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to ¶ 4(c)(i) of the Policy or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to ¶ 4(c)(iii) of the Policy. See Coryn Group, Inc. v. Media Insight, FA 198959 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 5, 2003) (finding that the respondent was not using the domain names for a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use because the respondent used the names to divert Internet users to a website that offered services that competed with those offered by the complainant under its marks); see also 24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc. v. 24HourNames.com-Quality Domains For Sale, FA 187429 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sep. 26, 2003) (holding that Respondent's use of the <24hrsfitness.com>, <24-hourfitness.com> and <24hoursfitness.com>, domain names to redirect Internet users to a website featuring advertisements and links to Complainant's competitors could not be considered a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use).
It is clear to the Panel that Respondent was aware of Complainant’s mark when it registered and started using the disputed domain name, because the disputed domain name is essentially identical to Complainant’s well-known mark.
Respondent (who did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions) has not presented any plausible explanation for its use of Complainant’s mark. In accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel shall draw such inferences from Respondent’s failure to reply as it considers appropriate. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent did not have a legitimate use in mind when registering the disputed domain name.
Indeed, in the Panel’s view, Respondent’s actual use of the disputed domain name (as noted above) is clearly not bona fide, because Respondent uses the disputed domain name to resolve to a web site that offers services that compete with those of the Complainant. This indicates that Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name to take advantage of the confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and Complainant’s mark in order to profit from the goodwill associated with the mark in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Disney Enters., Inc. v. Noel, FA 198805 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 11, 2003) (“Respondent registered a domain name confusingly similar to Complainant's mark to divert Internet users to a competitor's website. Respondent's purpose of registration and use was to either disrupt or create confusion for Complainant's business in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) [and] (iv).”); see also S. Exposure v. S. Exposure, Inc., FA 94864 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 18, 2000) (finding the respondent acted in bad faith by attracting Internet users to a website that competes with the complainant’s business); Univ. of Houston Sys. v. Salvia Corp., FA 637920 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 21, 2006) ("Respondent is using the disputed domain name to operate a website which features links to competing and non-competing commercial websites from which Respondent presumably receives referral fees. Such use for Respondent's own commercial gain is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy 4(b)(iv)."); Zee TV USA, Inc. v. Siddiqi, FA 721969 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 18, 2006) (finding that the respondent engaged in bad faith registration and use by using a domain name that was confusingly similar to the complainant's mark to offer links to third-party websites that offered services similar to those offered by the complainant).
Further, Respondent has engaged in typo squatting and this constitutes bad faith registration and use pursuant to ¶ 4(a)(iii). See The Vanguard Group, Inc. v. IQ Mgmt. Corp., FA 328127 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 28, 2004) (By engaging in typo squatting, [r]espondent has registered and used the <vangard.com> domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy 4(a)(iii).); see also Natl Assn of Profl Baseball League, Inc. v. Zuccarini, D2002-1011 (WIPO Jan. 21, 2003) (“Typo squatting, however, is the intentional misspelling of words with intent to intercept and siphon off traffic from its intended destination, by preying on Internauts who make common typing errors. Typo squatting is inherently parasitic and of itself evidence of bad faith.”).
Further, Respondent has been a respondent in prior UDRP cases in which the panels ordered the transfer of the at-issue domain names to the respective complainants. The Respondent’s previous UDRP decisions are evidence that Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name is a part of a pattern of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). See Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Bin g Glu, FA 1036129 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 2, 2007) (holding prior UDRP proceedings were sufficient evidence of a pattern of bad faith registrations); see also TRAVELOCITY.COM LP v. Aziz, FA 1260783 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 16, 2009) (“These previous [UDRP] decisions demonstrate a pattern of bad faith registration and use of domain names under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii).”).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <cheeggs.com> and <chregg.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Richard Hill, Panelist
Dated: May 21, 2015
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page