Indeed, Inc. v. rajiv sharma
Claim Number: FA1810001810087
Complainant is Indeed, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Justin Haddock of Indeed, Inc., Texas, USA. Respondent is rajiv sharma (“Respondent”), India.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <indeedgroups.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, 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.
Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on October 2, 2018; the Forum received payment on October 2, 2018.
On October 3, 2018, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <indeedgroups.com> 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 October 3, 2018, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of October 23, 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@indeedgroups.com. Also on October 3, 2018, 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 October 25, 2018, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Paul M. DeCicco 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 contends as follows:
Complainant, Indeed, Inc. provides the world’s largest job site. Complainant uses the INDEED mark to provide and market its’ products and services.
Complainant has rights in the INDEED mark based upon its registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”).
Respondent’s <indeedgroups.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s INDEED mark as it incorporates the mark in its entirety, merely adding the generic term “groups” and the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.”
Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <indeedgroups.com> domain name. Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant’s INDEED mark and is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Additionally, Respondent is not using the <indeedgroups.com> domain name in connection with any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent fails to make an active use of the disputed domain name. In addition, Respondent uses the domain name to impersonate Complainant in furtherance of a fraudulent, phishing scheme.
Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent attempts to disrupt Complainant’s business by impersonating Complainant as part of an email phishing scheme. Moreover, Respondent failed to respond to Complainant’s cease and desist letters. Finally, Respondent had actual knowledge of the INDEED mark when it registered and subsequently used the <indeedgroups.com> domain name.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant has rights in the INDEED mark through the registration of such mark with the USPTO and otherwise.
Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and had not been authorized to use Complainant’s trademark in any capacity.
Respondent registered the at‑issue domain name after Complainant acquired rights in the INDEED trademark.
Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to pass itself off as Complainant in furtherance of a phishing scheme.
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 at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.
Complainant owns a USPTO trademark registration for its INDEED mark which constitutes conclusive evidence of Complainant’s rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Home Depot Product Authority, LLC v. Samy Yosef / Express Transporting, FA 1738124 (Forum July 28, 2017) (finding that registration with the USPTO was sufficient to establish the complainant’s rights in the HOME DEPOT mark).
Respondent’s <indeedgroups.com> domain name contains Complainant’s INDEED trademark followed by the term “groups.” To complete the domain name Respondent adds the top-level domain name “.com.” The slight differences between Complainant’s trademark and the <indeedgroups.com> domain name fail to distinguish the domain name from Complainant’s mark for the purpose of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). The Panel thus concludes that Respondent’s <indeedgroups.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s INDEED trademark. 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).
Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 18, 2006). Since Respondent failed to respond, Complainant’s prima facie showing acts conclusively.
Respondent lacks both rights and legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant’s trademark in any capacity and, as discussed below, there are no Policy ¶4(c) circumstances from which the Panel might find that Respondent has rights or interests in respect of the at‑issue domain name.
WHOIS information for the at-issue domain name identifies the domain name’s registrant as “rajiv sharma” and the record before the Panel contains no evidence that otherwise tends to prove that Respondent is commonly known by the <indeedgroups.com> domain name. The Panel therefore concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by the <indeedgroups.com> domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Coppertown Drive-Thru Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089 (Forum July 17, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <coppertown.com> domain name where there was no evidence in the record, including the WHOIS information, suggesting that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name).
Additionally, Respondent uses the <indeedgroups.com> domain name to pass itself off as Complainant in furtherance of a phishing scheme. To wit, Respondent uses an email address hosted by its <indeedgroups.com> domain name to correspond with consumers regarding job opportunities. Respondent’s ultimate objective is to extract funds from Complainant’s customers and potential customers. Using the domain name in this manner is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4 (c)(ii) [UDRP Policy ¶ 4(c)(i)], nor a non-commercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iv) [UDRP Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)]. See Abbvie, Inc. v. James Bulow, FA 1701075 (Forum Nov. 30, 2016) (“Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to pose as Complainant’s CEO by means of email addresses at the confusingly similar domain name in an attempt to determine Complainant’s ability to process a transfer. Using the domain name in this manner is neither a bona fide offering of goods and services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)”); see also, DaVita Inc. v. Cynthia Rochelo, FA 1738034 (Forum July 20, 2017) (”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.”).
Given the forgoing, Complainant satisfies its initial burden and conclusively demonstrates Respondent’s lack of rights and lack of interests in respect of the at-issue domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
The at-issue domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. As discussed below without limitation, Policy ¶ 4(b) bad faith circumstances are present and there is additional non-Policy ¶ 4(b) evidence from which the Panel may independently conclude that Respondent acted in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
First and as mentioned above regarding rights and legitimate interests, Respondent uses an email address at <indeedgroups.com> to pose as Complainant in furtherance of a phishing scheme. Respondent’s use of the <indeedgroups.com> domain name in this manner demonstrates bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and otherwise. See Abbvie, Inc. v. James Bulow, FA 1701075 (Forum Nov. 30, 2016) (“Respondent uses the <abbuie.com> domain name to impersonate Complainant’s CEO. Such use is undeniably disruptive to Complainant’s business and demonstrates bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii), and/or Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)”); see also, See Qatalyst Partners LP v. Devimore, FA 1393436 (Forum July 13, 2011) (finding that using the disputed domain name as an e-mail address to pass itself off as the complainant in a phishing scheme is evidence of bad faith registration and use); see also Monsanto Co. v. Decepticons, FA 101536 (Forum Dec. 18, 2001) (finding that the respondent's use of <monsantos.com> to misrepresent itself as the complainant and to provide misleading information to the public supported a finding of bad faith).
Finally, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the INDEED mark when it registered <indeedgroups.com>. Respondent’s actual knowledge is evident from the notoriety of Complainant’s trademark and from Respondent’s use of the <indeedgroups.com> domain name to pass itself off as Complainant. Registering and using a confusingly similar domain name with knowledge of Complainant’s rights in such domain name shows Respondent’s bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶4(a)(iii). See Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name); see also, 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).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <indeedgroups.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist
Dated: October 25, 2018
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page