Indeed, Inc. v. Domain Admin / Domain Privacy Guard Sociedad Anónima Ltd
Claim Number: FA1810001814504
Complainant is Indeed, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Justin Haddock of Indeed, Inc., Texas, USA. Respondent is Domain Admin / Domain Privacy Guard Sociedad Anónima Ltd (“Respondent”), Panama.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <indeeded.com>, registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com.
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.
Kenneth L. Port as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on October 31, 2018; the Forum received payment on October 31, 2018.
On November 2, 2018, PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <indeeded.com> domain name is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com 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 November 2, 2018, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of November 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@indeeded.com. Also on November 2, 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 November 24, 2018, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Kenneth L. Port 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 provides the world’s largest job site, with over 200 million unique visitors every month from over 60 different countries. Indeed helps companies of all sizes hire employees and helps job seekers find employment opportunities. Complainant has rights in the INDEED mark through its registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g. Reg. No. 3,141,242, registered Sep. 12, 2006, filed Dec. 3, 2004). See Compl. Ex. C. Respondent’s <indeeded.com> domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark as it merely appends the letters “ed” and the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <indeeded.com> 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 also 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 to divert users to a parking page where Respondent prominently features sponsored links/ads referencing Complainant’s services and redirecting to Complainant’s competitors. See Compl. Ex. D.
Respondent registered and uses the <indeeded.com> 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 Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s website where it offers competing hyperlinks. See Compl. Ex. D. Further, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights prior to registration due to the fame and worldwide prominence of the INDEED mark along with Respondent use of the domain name to offer competing hyperlinks.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. Respondent registered the <indeeded.com> domain name on June 22, 2006.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s valid and subsisting trademark; that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in or to the disputed domain name; and that Respondent has engaged in bad faith use and registration of the disputed domain name.
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 Panel finds that the disputed domain name, <indeeded.com>, is confusingly similar to Complainant’s valid and subsisting trademark, INDEED. Complainant has adequately plead its rights and interests in and to this trademark. Respondent arrives at the disputed domain name by merely making the exact trademark into a past tense verb and adding the g TLD “.com.” This is insufficient to distinguish the disputed domain name from Complainant’s trademark.
As such, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark.
The Panel further finds that Respondent lacks any rights or legitimate interests in or to the dispute domain name. Respondent has no right, permission or license to register the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name.
Further, 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 to divert users to a parking page where Respondent prominently features sponsored links/ads referencing Complainant’s services and redirecting to Complainant’s competitors. See Compl. Ex. D.
As such, the Panel finds that Respondent lacks any rights or legitimate interests in or to the disputed domain name.
The Panel also finds that Respondent has engaged in bad faith use and registration of the disputed domain name. Complainant claims that Respondent intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s website where it offers competing hyperlinks. Using a disputed domain name to trade upon the goodwill of a complainant for commercial gain can evince bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See American Council on Education and GED Testing Service LLC v. Anthony Williams, FA1760954 (Forum January 8, 2018) (“Respondent’s hosting of links to Complainant’s competitors demonstrates bad faith registration and use of the <geddiploma.org> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)”). Complainant provides a screenshot of the resolving webpage associated with the disputed domain name, which appears to display links such as “Job Openings in My Area” and “Jobs Hiring at 14.” See Compl. Ex. D.
As such, the Panel finds that Respondent attempted to compete with Complainant for commercial gain in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
Further, Complainant argues that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the INDEED mark at the time of registering the <indeeded.com> domain name. There is no evidence in the record to support that claim that Respondent specifically knew of Complainant’s trademark and its rights therein prior to registering the disputed domain name. Given that the Complainant waited over 12 years to file this complaint with no explanation for the delay, makes this Panel dubious about this claim;
However, given the fame of Complainant’s mark and Respondent’s demonstrated efforts to trade off of Complainant’s good will, and given the totality of the circumstances, the Panel finds that Respondent must have had actual knowledge of Complainant’s mark and its rights therein prior to registering the disputed domain name.
As such, the Panel finds that Respondent has engaged in bad faith use and registration of 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 <indeeded.com> domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
Kenneth L. Port, Panelist
Dated: November 24, 2018
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page