Indeed, Inc. v. Privacy Protected by Registry
Claim Number: FA1809001808978
Complainant is Indeed, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Justin Haddock, Texas, USA. Respondent is Privacy Protected by Registry ("Respondent"), China.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <indeed.cam>, registered with Dynadot, 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 September 26, 2018; the Forum received payment on September 26, 2018.
On September 26, 2018, Dynadot, LLC confirmed by email to the Forum that the <indeed.cam> domain name is registered with Dynadot, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Dynadot, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Dynadot, 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 September 28, 2018, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of October 18, 2018 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@indeed.cam. Also on September 28, 2018, 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 October 23, 2018, 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 operates a popular website for employers and job seekers, with over 200 million unique monthly visitors from over 60 countries. Complainant has used the INDEED mark for this purpose since at least 2004, and asserts that the mark has become famous as a result of such use. Complainant claims rights in the mark both at common law and by virtue of various trademark registrations in United States and other jurisdictions.
Respondent registered the disputed domain name <indeed.cam> in August 2018. The domain name resolves to a website that consists of "related links" to employment-related websites, including one labeled "Indeed Jobs." Upon clicking one of these links, a user is redirected to "sponsored listings" that redirect to third-party websites, including the websites of Complainant's direct competitors. Complainant states that it has not licensed nor otherwise permitted Respondent to use its INDEED mark, and that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. On these grounds Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a mark in which it has rights; that Respondent has no 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.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical 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 and inferences set forth in the Complaint as true unless the evidence is clearly contradictory. See Vertical Solutions Management, 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 <indeed.cam> corresponds to Complainant's registered INDEED trademark, adding only the ".cam" top-level domain. This addition is insufficient to distinguish the domain name from Complainant's mark. See, e.g., Indeed, Inc. v. Alvaro Lemos, FA 1793156 (Forum July 18, 2018) (finding <indeed.one> confusingly similar to INDEED); Confédération Nationale Du Crédit Mutuel c. Roben, Bensalme, D2017-2140 (WIPO Jan. 15, 2018) (finding <creditmutuel.cam> identical or confusingly similar to CREDIT MUTUEL); Bittrex, Inc. v. Housnta Benslem, FA 1760232 (Forum Jan. 3, 2018) (finding <bittrex.cam> identical to BITTREX). Accordingly, the Panel considers the disputed domain name to be identical to Complainant's registered mark.
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 corresponds to Complainant's registered mark without authorization, and it is being used to display third-party advertising links, including links to Complainant's direct competitors, presumably for Respondent's benefit. Such use does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests under the Policy. See, e.g., Availity, L.L.C. v. Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot, FA 1806148 (Forum Oct. 22, 2018) (finding lack of rights or legitimate interests under similar circumstances).
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 registered a domain name corresponding to Complainant's mark, adding a top-level domain that differs by only one character from that used by Complainant, and is using the domain name to attract traffic to a web page consisting of pay-per-click links that include to Complainant's direct competitors. Such conduct is indicative of bad faith under these provisions of the Policy. See, e.g., Rakuten, Inc. v. Zheng ZhongXing, DCO2018-0023 (WIPO Sept. 10, 2018) (finding bad faith registration and use under similar circumstances); Seatgeek, Inc. v. Sean Lankford, DCO2018-0022 (WIPO Sept. 7, 2018) (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 <indeed.cam> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
David E. Sorkin, Panelist
Dated: October 23, 2018
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page