Indeed, Inc. v. javeed khan
Claim Number: FA1712001763184
Complainant is Indeed, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Rebecca R. McCurry of Pirkey Barber PLLC, Texas, USA. Respondent is javeed khan (“Respondent”), India.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <indeedjob.info>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.
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 December 15, 2017; the Forum received payment on December 15, 2017.
On December 18, 2017, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <indeedjob.info> 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 December 19, 2017, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of January 8, 2018 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@indeedjob.info. Also on December 19, 2017, 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 January 9, 2018, 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 name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant states that it provides the world’s largest job site, with over 200 million unique visitors every month from over 60 different countries. It helps companies of all sizes hire employees and helps job seekers find employment opportunities. Complainant registered the INDEED mark in the United States in 2006.
Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark as it incorporates the INDEED mark in its entirety and adds the generic term “job” and the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.info.”
According to Complainant, Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Complainant authorized, licensed, or otherwise permitted Respondent to use the mark. Respondent does not use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, Respondent uses the domain name in connection with a fraudulent website offering online career search and recruitment services prominently featuring the INDEED marks. Further, Respondent uses the disputed domain name to deceive job seekers into purchasing services that are never provided and to acquire their personal information.
Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s website where it offers competing, although probably fraudulent, services. Further, Respondent is using the disputed domain name for the purpose of stealing money and personal information from innocent job seekers. Finally, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights prior to registering the domain name due to the Complainant’s prior trademark registrations and the fame of the INDEED mark.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant owns the mark INDEED and uses it to offer employment services around the world.
Complainant’s rights in its mark date back to 2006.
The disputed domain name was registered in 2017.
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark.
The disputed domain resolves to a fraudulent website offering online career search and recruitment services prominently featuring the INDEED mark. Further, Respondent uses the disputed domain name to deceive job seekers into purchasing services that are never provided and to acquire their personal information.
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 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 (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.”).
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark as it incorporates the INDEED mark in its entirety and adds the generic term “job” and the gTLD “.info.” Similar changes in a registered mark have failed to sufficiently distinguish a domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶4(a)(i). See Microsoft Corporation v. Thong Tran Thanh, FA 1653187 (Forum Jan. 21, 2016) (determining that confusing similarity exist where [a disputed domain name] contains Complainant’s entire mark and differs only by the addition of a generic or descriptive phrase and top-level domain, the differences between the domain name and its contained trademark are insufficient to differentiate one from the other for the purposes of the Policy.); see also Trip Network Inc. v. Alviera, FA 914943 (Forum Mar. 27, 2007) (concluding that the affixation of a gTLD to a domain name is irrelevant to a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis). The Panel therefore finds that the <indeedjob.info> domain name is confusingly similar to the INDEED mark under Policy ¶4(a)(i).
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name: where a response is lacking, relevant information includes the WHOIS and any other assertions by a complainant regarding the nature of its relationship with a respondent. 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). The WHOIS identifies “javeed khan” as the registrant. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
Complainant presents evidence showing that Respondent uses the disputed domain name in connection with a fraudulent website offering online career search and recruitment services prominently featuring the INDEED mark. Using a confusingly similar domain name to pass off as a complainant and resolve to a competing webpage is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See H-D U.S.A., LLC v. Yoshihiro Nakazawa, FA 1736477 (Forum July 21, 2017) (“A complainant can use assertions of passing off and offering competing goods or services to evince a lack of a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.”); see also Upwork Global Inc. v. Shoaib Malik, FA 1654759 (Forum February 3, 2016) (finding that Complainant provides freelance talent services, and that Respondent competes with Complainant by promoting freelance talent services through the disputed domain’s resolving webpage, which is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor is it a legitimate noncommercial or fair use). The Panel therefore finds that Respondent attempts to pass off as Complainant to offer competing services, failing to use the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).
Further, Complainant presents evidence showing that Respondent uses the disputed domain name to deceive job seekers into purchasing services that are never provided and to acquire their personal information. Specifically, Complainant provides consumer complaints regarding Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name, which show that Respondent requests money from users promising to repay the money after the interview process, neither of which occurs. Fraudulent schemes and phishing schemes can evince a failure to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See Google Inc. v. Pritam Singh / Pandaje Technical Services Pvt Ltd., FA 1660771 (Forum March 17, 2016) (agreeing that respondent has not shown any bona fide offering of goods or services or any legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii) as the respondent used the complainant’s mark and logo on a resolving website containing offers for technical support and password recovery services, and soliciting Internet users’ personal information). As such, the Panel finds that Respondent attempts fraudulently to obtain personal and financial information from users, failing to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). The Panel finds that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the dispute domain name.
Respondent (who did not reply to Complainant’s contentions) has not presented any plausible explanation for his 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, as already noted, Respondent uses the disputed domain name to intentionally attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the Registrant’s website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s website where it hosts a competing, although probably fraudulent, website. Using a disputed domain name that trades upon the goodwill of a complainant for commercial gain can evince bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Xylem Inc. and Xylem IP Holdings LLC v. YinSi BaoHu YiKaiQi, FA1504001612750 (Forum May 13, 2015) (“The Panel agrees that Respondent’s use of the website to display products similar to Complainant’s, imputes intent to attract Internet users for commercial gain, and finds bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).”). Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent attempted to commercially benefit off Complainant’s mark in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
Further, Respondent engages in a phishing scheme fraudulently to obtain personal and financial information, and payments, from unsuspecting users seeking Complainant’s services. Using a confusingly similar domain name to phish for personal or financial information can provide evidence of bad faith registration and use within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See 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).”). Thus, the Panel finds bad faith also under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Finally, the resolving web site reproduces Complainant’s mark. This indicates that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the INDEED mark at the time of registering the disputed domain name. Actual knowledge of a complainant's rights in a mark prior to registering a confusingly similar domain name can evince bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Univision Comm'cns Inc. v. Norte, FA 1000079 (Forum Aug. 16, 2007) (rejecting the respondent's contention that it did not register the disputed domain name in bad faith since the panel found that the respondent had knowledge of the complainant's rights in the UNIVISION mark when registering the disputed domain name). Thus the Panel finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s mark, demonstrating bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <indeedjob.info> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Richard Hill, Panelist
Dated: January 9, 2018
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page