The Internet Bug Bounty v. REBECCA SANKAUSKAS
Claim Number: FA1703001722558
Complainant is The Internet Bug Bounty (“Complainant”), represented by David A.W. Wong of Barnes & Thornburg LLP, Indiana, USA. Respondent is REBECCA SANKAUSKAS (“Respondent”), California, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <internetbugbounty.com>, registered with Uniregistrar Corp.
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.
John J. Upchurch as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on March 20, 2017; the Forum received payment on March 21, 2017.
On March 24, 2017, Uniregistrar Corp confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <internetbugbounty.com> domain name is registered with Uniregistrar Corp and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Uniregistrar Corp has verified that Respondent is bound by the Uniregistrar Corp 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 March 28, 2017, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 17, 2017 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@internetbugbounty.com. Also on March 28, 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 April 24, 2017, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed John J. Upchurch 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
1. Complainant, The Internet Bug Bounty, operates in the computer security services industry. In connection with its business, Complainant uses the THE INTERNET BUG BOUNTY trademark. Complainant has rights in the THE INTERNET BUG BOUNTY mark as a result of its registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 4,931,465, registered Apr. 5, 2016). See Compl., at Attached Ex. B. Respondent’s <internetbugbounty.com> is confusingly similar to its THE INTERNET BUG BOUNTY mark because it incorporates the mark—less the spaces and article (“the”)—merely inserting a “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).
2. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in <internetbugbounty.com>. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and Complainant has not licensed or permitted Respondent to use its THE INTERNET BUG BOUNTY mark in any respect. Respondent has not used the disputed domain in connection with any bona fide offering of goods or services but rather uses the <internetbugbounty.com> to redirect Internet traffic. Until recently, the disputed domain redirected Internet users to a competing website available at <bugcrowd.com>; currently the disputed domain resolves to Complainant’s website. See Compl., at Attached Ex. H. Respondent also fails to use the disputed domain in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services by not constructively operating a website, but rather simply using the disputed domain name to resolve to other websites. By using the disputed domain name for diversionary purposes while failing to operate a substantive website, Respondent is not making a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). Therefore, Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
3. Respondent has registered and used the domain name <internetbugbounty.com> in bad faith. Respondent’s use of the disputed domain displays a bad faith attempt to prevent Complainant from using the disputed domain name. Additionally, Respondent is attempting to divert users seeking Complainant’s website to Respondent’s website in a manner evocative of bad faith. See Compl., at Attached Ex. H. Such a use is a diversion or disruption, which falls under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). Respon-dent’s use of the disputed domain to resolve to a competitor’s website also evinces bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). Finally, Respondent registered the disputed domain names with full knowledge of Complainant’s prior use of, rights in, and goodwill associated with THE INTERNET BUG BOUNTY. The founders of the <bugcrowd.com> domain to which <internetbugbounty.com> originally redirected had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the mark. See Compl., at Attached Ex. F. Such knowledge is evidence of bad faith registration and use with regard to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
B. Respondent
1. Respondent did not submit a Response.
1. Respondent’s <internetbugbounty.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s THE INTERNET BUG BOUNTY mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the
<internetbugbounty.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered or used the <internetbugbounty.com> domain name 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 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.”).
Complainant, The Internet Bug Bounty, operates in the computer security services industry. In connection with its business, Complainant uses its THE INTERNET BUG BOUNTY trademark. Complainant claims it has rights in its THE INTERNET BUG BOUNTY mark as a result of its registration with the USPTO (e.g. Reg. No. 4,931,465, registered Apr. 5, 2016). See Compl., at Attached Ex. B. The general consensus is that registration with the USPTO is sufficient in conferring rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See T-Mobile USA, Inc. dba MetroPCS v. Ryan G Foo / PPA Media Services, FA 1627542 (Forum Aug. 9, 2015) (finding that Complainant has rights in the METROPCS mark through its registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office). Therefore, the Panel deems Complainant’s evidence of a USPTO registration for its THE INTERNET BUG BOUNTY mark to be sufficient in establishing rights under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant argues Respondent’s <internetbugbounty.com> is confusingly similar to the THE INTERNET BUG BOUNTY mark because it incorporates the mark—less the spaces and “the”—merely inserting a “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”). Panels have determined that domain names are confusingly similar to a mark where the domain names merely omitted the first term “the” from the mark. See The Pros Closet, Inc. v. Above.com Domain Privacy, FA 1616518 (Forum June 3, 2015) (finding confusing similarity where the <proscloset.com> domain name merely omitted the first term (“the”) from Complainant’s THE PROS CLOSET mark, eliminated spacing between words, and added the “.com” gTLD.) Omission of spacing in a mark and addition of a gTLD are irrelevant in a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis for confusing similarity. See Bond & Co. Jewelers, Inc. v. Tex. Int’l Prop. Assocs., FA 937650 (Forum Apr. 30, 2007) (finding that the elimination of spaces between terms and the addition of a gTLD do not establish distinctiveness from the complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)). The Panel agrees that Respondent’s <internetbugbounty.com> is confusingly similar to its THE INTERNET BUG BOUNTY mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006) (holding that the complainant must first make a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under UDRP ¶ 4(a)(ii) before the burden shifts to the respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in a domain name); see also AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Forum Sept. 25, 2006) (“Complainant must first make a prima facie showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names, which burden is light. If Complainant satisfies its burden, then the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain
names.”).
Complainant contends that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in <internetbugbounty.com>. In support of this assertion, Complainant indicates that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and Complainant has not licensed or permitted Respondent to use its THE INTERNET BUG BOUNTY mark in any respect. Where a response is lacking, WHOIS information can support a finding that the respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. See Chevron Intellectual Property LLC v. Fred Wallace, FA1506001626022 (Forum July 27, 2015) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <chevron-europe.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), as the WHOIS information named “Fred Wallace” as registrant of the disputed domain name). The WHOIS information of record identifies Respondent as “REBECCA SANKAUSKAS.” See Compl., at Attached Ex. D. In addition, failure to establish authorization approval for a respondent to use a complainant’s mark can be evidence of a lack of rights or legitimate interests in a confusingly similar domain name. See IndyMac Bank F.S.B. v. Eshback, FA 830934 (Forum Dec. 7, 2006) (finding that the respondent failed to establish rights and legitimate interests in the <emitmortgage.com> domain name as the respondent was not authorized to register domain names featuring the complainant’s mark and failed to submit evidence that it is commonly known by the domain name). The Panel therefore finds under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) that Respondent has not been commonly known by the disputed domain name.
Complainant next argues that Respondent uses the <internetbugbounty.com> to redirect Internet traffic. Respondent’s demonstrated intent to divert Internet users seeking Complainant’s website to a website of Respondent and for Respondent’s benefit is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and it is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). Until recently, the disputed domain name allegedly redirected Internet users to a competing website available at <bugcrowd.com>; currently the disputed domain name resolves to Complainant’s website. See Compl., at Attached Ex. H. Complainant contends furthermore that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services by not constructively operating a website, but rather using the disputed domain name to resolve to other websites. Panels have found that the failure to make an active use of a domain name is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See FDNY Fire Safety Education Fund, Inc. v. Roger Miller, FA 145235 (Forum Mar. 26, 2003) (finding that a failure to operate a substantive website in connection with a disputed domain name “permits the inference that it lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name.”). The Panel therefore agrees that Complainant has met its prima facie burden under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and 4(c)(iii).
Complainant argues that Respondent has registered and used the domain name <internetbugbounty.com> in bad faith. Complainant contends Respondent is attempting to divert users seeking Complainant’s website to Respondent’s website. See Compl., at Attached Ex. H. Such a use has been understood to be a diversion or disruption which falls under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). Classic Metal Roofs, LLC v. Interlock Indus., Ltd., FA 724554 (Forum Aug. 1, 2006) (finding that the respondent registered and used the <classicmetalroofing.com> domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) by redirecting Internet users to the respondent’s competing website). Complainant once again draws attention to Attached Ex. H., which contains a screenshot of the disputed domain resolving to a competitor’s website. The Panel finds such a use is disruptive and competitive and therefore satisfies Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).
Complainant additionally argues that Respondent registered the disputed domain names with full knowledge of Complainant’s prior use of, rights in and goodwill associated with the THE INTERNET BUG BOUNTY mark. Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii), such knowledge has been found to constitute bad faith. The founders of the <bugcrowd.com> domain to which <internetbugbounty.com> originally redirected had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the mark. See Compl., at Attached Ex. F. Complainant again indicates that the disputed domain currently resolves to Complainant’s own website. Panels have found that when a disputed domain resolves to a website which makes use of a complainant’s services, such use can indicate a respondent’s actual knowledge. See WordPress Foundation v. mich delorme / mich d dots tlds, FA1410001584295 (Forum Nov. 25, 2014) (“Because Respondent here relies on the WORDPRESS mark in the disputed domain name and also makes use of Complainant’s services at the resolving page, the Panel finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s mark, and that such knowledge evidences Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) bad faith.”). Therefore the Panel finds that evidence of bad faith registration and use with regard to 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 <internetbugbounty.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
John J Upchurch, Panelist
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page