Goodreads LLC v. Mayk Belov / N/A
Claim Number: FA1506001624520
Complainant is Goodreads LLC ("Complainant"), represented by James F. Struthers of Richard Law Group, Inc., Texas, USA. Respondent is Mayk Belov / N/A ("Respondent"), Ukraine.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <bestgoodreadslink.com>, registered with DomainContext, Inc.
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 June 16, 2015; the Forum received payment on June 16, 2015.
On June 16, 2015, the Forum transmitted to DomainContext, Inc. a request that it verify the registration information and registration agreement for the disputed domain name. On June 19, 2015, a response was received from Regional Network Information Center (RU-CENTER) verifying the information and stating that the language of the registration agreement is Russian. The Panel notes that ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy") is incorporated in the registration agreements for both DomainContext, Inc. and RU-CENTER, and registrants thereby agree that domain disputes brought by third parties shall be resolved in accordance with the Policy.
On June 23, 2015, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 13, 2015 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@bestgoodreadslink.com. Also on June 23, 2015, 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 July 17, 2015, 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 what it describes as the world's largest site for readers and book recommendations, launched in 2007 and featuring 40 million members, 1.1 billion book listings, and 43 million reviews. Complainant uses the GOODREADS trademark in connection with this site; a U.S. registration for the mark issued in 2010.
Complainant contends that the disputed domain name <bestgoodreadslink.com>, registered in May 2015, is confusingly similar to its GOODREADS mark; that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. In support thereof, Complainant states that Respondent is not commonly known by Complainant's mark, has not been licensed to use the mark, and is not affiliated with Complainant in any way. Complainant accuses Respondent of using the disputed domain name for a website that is a fake version of Complainant's site, copying the logos, taglines, photos, and other aspects of the site, but directing users who select a "download" button to a third-party site that attempts to download potentially dangerous executable files.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar 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 has been 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(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.").
Paragraph 11(a) of the Rules provides that absent an agreement to the contrary, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the Registration Agreement, subject to the authority of the Panel to determine otherwise. The Panel considers it appropriate to exercise its authority in this regard in a manner consistent with Paragraphs 10(b) and 10(c), which require that each party be given a fair opportunity to present its case and that the proceeding take place expeditiously. See Argento Wine Co. v. Argento Beijing Trading Co., D2009-0610 (WIPO July 1, 2009). Where evidence indicates that Respondent is familiar with the language of the Complaint and requiring translation into another language would unduly burden Complainant or unnecessarily delay the proceedings, a Panel may exercise its discretion to conduct the proceedings in a language other than that of the Registration Agreement. See id.
According to the verification message received from RU-CENTER, the Registration Agreement that governs the disputed domain name is written in Russian. It is not clear to the Panel why this message was received from RU-CENTER rather than from DomainContext, Inc., the registrar of record. The Panel notes that the posted registration agreement for DomainContext, Inc. is written in English rather than Russian, a fact upon which Complainant may well have relied in preparing its Complaint in English.
The disputed domain name is comprised of four English-language words, and it resolves to a website that is also in English.
The Complaint in this proceeding is in English, but it was transmitted to Respondent accompanied by a notice in both English and Russian, describing the Complaint and its implications. The subsequent notification of the Panel's appointment was also transmitted to Respondent in both English and Russian. Respondent has neither responded to the Complaint nor raised any objections in this proceeding.
Complainant claims that conducting this proceeding in Russian would require it to incur significant additional expense and delay. Complainant is a subsidiary of Amazon.com, Inc., a large multinational corporation with substantial legal and language resources. The Panel does not believe it would be unduly burdensome to Complainant for the proceeding to be conducted in Russian. See Amazon.com Inc., Amazon Technologies, Inc., Goodreads, Inc. v. Shi Lei aka shilei, D2014-1093 (WIPO Sept. 11, 2014) (deciding to conduct proceeding in English rather than Chinese despite lack of burden to Amazon).
It appears from the available evidence that Respondent is proficient in English. The Panel concludes that no prejudice will result from conducting the proceeding in that language, and that doing so will enable the proceeding to be conducted expeditiously. The Panel therefore decides that English shall be the language of this proceeding.
The disputed domain name <bestgoodreadslink.com> corresponds to Complainant's registered trademark GOODREADS, with the generic terms "best" and "link" and the ".com" top-level domain appended thereto. These alterations do not diminish the similarity between the domain name and Complainant's mark. See, e.g., Chan Luu Inc. v. zhiyuan liu / liu zhilyuan, FA 1510511 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 10, 2013) (finding <bestchanluu.com> confusingly similar to CHAN LUU); RapidShare AG, Christian Schmid v. Omer Ozkon Web, D2010-0613 (WIPO June 4, 2010) (finding <rapidsharelink.com> identical or confusingly similar to RAPID SHARE). The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's GOODREADS 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 Prods., Inc. v. Entm't Commentaries, FA 741828 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 18, 2006).
The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's registered mark, and is being used for a website that impersonates Complainant's site, presumably for Respondent's financial gain. 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. See Bechtel Group, Inc. v. Macy Adams, FA 1534002 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 3, 2014) (finding lack of rights or legitimate interests under similar circumstances).
Finally, Complainant must show that the disputed domain name was registered and has been 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's registration of a domain name that incorporates Complainant's mark, together with its use of that domain name in connection with a scheme attempting to exploit confusion with Complainant by creating a fake version of Complainant's site with links to potentially dangerous malware, presumably for financial gain, is indicative of bad faith under these provisions of the Policy. See, e.g., Google Inc. v. Scott Litoline / SLA, FA 1542043 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 12, 2014) (finding bad faith where domain name was used to mimic complainant's website and distribute malware). The Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and has been used in bad faith.
Having considered the three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <bestgoodreadslink.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
David E. Sorkin, Panelist
Dated: July 17, 2015
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page