Quora, Inc. v. Divya Joy / Tech Quora
Claim Number: FA1706001736824
Complainant is Quora, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Patchen M. Haggerty of Perkins Coie LLP, Washington, USA. Respondent is Divya Joy / Tech Quora (“Respondent”), Philippines.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <techquora.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 June 21, 2017; the Forum received payment on June 21, 2017.
On June 22, 2017, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <techquora.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 June 27, 2017, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 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@techquora.com. Also on June 27, 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.
A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on July 17, 2017.
On July 18, 2017, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Paul M. DeCicco as Panelist.
A timely Additional Submission was received from Complainant on July 24, 2017.
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.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant contends as follows:
Complainant uses the QUORA mark in connection with feedback-based computer software.
Complainant registered the QUORA mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 4,387,898, registered Aug. 20, 2013).
Respondent’s <techquora.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark as it contains Complainant’s QUORA mark in its entirety with the addition of the generic top-level-domain (“gTLD”) “.com” and the descriptive or generic wording “tech,” an abbreviation for the word technology.
Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in <techquora.com>. Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name, nor has Complainant authorized Respondent to use the QUORA mark for any purpose. Respondent also fails to use the disputed domain name in connection with any bona fide offering of goods or services, or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent uses the disputed domain name’s resolving website to provide competitive goods and services to those offered under Complainant’s QUORA mark. Respondent registered the domain name using a WHOIS privacy service.
Respondent registered and uses <techquora.com> in bad faith. Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name involves resolving to a website that provides services competitive with those offered under Complainant’s QUORA trademark. Respondent’s conduct of appropriating Complainant’s mark for use in a similar, competing website demonstrates Respondent’s actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the QUORA mark prior to registration of the disputed domain name.
B. Respondent
Respondent contends as follows:
The “quora” component of the at-issue domain name stands for the plural of “quorum” and does not infringe on Complainant’s QUORA mark.
The website does not provide services in direct competition with Complainant. Respondent hosts no advertisements using the at-issue domain name and generates no revenue from the disputed domain name.
C. Complainant Additional Submission
In its Additional Submission Complainant contends as follows:
Respondent’s assertion that “quora” is the plural form of the Latin word “quorum” is incorrect. Even if it were, it is not descriptive regarding Respondent’s website.
Respondent shows no evidence of rights or legitimate interests in the at-issue domain name.
Respondent’s description of the at-issue domain name’s function to support a technology portal is commercial in nature and in fact comprehends a subset of the activities performed by Complainant’s QUORA business.
Respondent’s offer to sell the at-issue domain name for a cost based on Respondent’s past efforts concerning the domain name indicates that such amount would be in excess of Respondent out-of-pocket costs regarding the domain name. Therefore the offer is evidence of Respondent’s bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(i).
Complainant has rights in the QUORA mark via its registration of such mark with the USPTO.
Respondent registered the at-issue domain name after acquired rights in the QUORA mark.
Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant’s QUORA trademark.
Respondent used the domain name to address a website offering services that compete with the services offered by Complainant under its QUORA trademark.
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.
Complainant’s registration of the QUORA mark with the USPTO establishes its rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Humor Rainbow, Inc. v. James Lee, FA 1626154 (Forum Aug. 11, 2015) (stating, “There exists an overwhelming consensus amongst UDRP panels that USPTO registrations are sufficient in demonstrating a complainant’s rights under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) and its vested interests in a mark...”); see also, Haas Automation, Inc. v. Jim Fraser, FA 1627211 (Forum Aug. 4, 2015) (finding that Complainant’s USPTO registrations for the HAAS mark sufficiently demonstrate its rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)).
Respondent’s <techquora.com> domain name contains Complainant’s entire QUORA trademark prefixed with the descriptive term “tech.” Respondent completes the domain name by adding a necessary top-level domain name, here “.com.” However, the resulting differences between the at-issue domain name and Complainant’s trademark are insufficient to differentiate one from the other for the purposes of the Policy and whether or not QUORA is descriptive is inconsequential to this determination. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent’s domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s QUORA mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). ). see also, Gillette Co. v. RFK Assocs., FA 492867 (Forum July 28, 2005) (finding that the additions of the term “batteries,” which described the complainant’s products, and the generic top-level domain “.com” were insufficient to distinguish the respondent’s <duracellbatteries.com> from the complainant’s DURACELL mark).
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 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006). Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use Complainant’s trademark in any capacity and therefore Complainant carries its initial slight burden. As shown below, Respondent fails to counter Complainant’s prima facie showing.
WHOIS information for the at-issue domain name identifies the domain name’s registrant as “Registration Private / Domains By Proxy, LLC.” After lifting the privacy registration service’s cloak the nominal registrant is revealed as “Divya Joy / Tech Quora.” Respondent’s inclusion of “Tech Quora” as the domain name registrant’s organization does little to impress upon the Panel that Respondent is commonly known by the <techquora.com> domain name. The record before the Panel contains no evidence corroborating such a finding and Respondent makes no claim that it has ever been commonly known by the <techquora.com> domain name. Therefore, the Panel concludes for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) that Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name. 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).
Respondent appears to have used the confusingly similar <techquora.com> > domain name to address a website that superficially looks to be a technology discussion/information forum. Complainant’s papers include a WayBack Machine archived webpage relating to the at-issue domain name. Such page shows that Respondent’s <techquora.com> website endeavor is markedly similar to Complainant’s activities under the QUORA trademark. While Complainant fails to lay any foundation for the WayBack document or its authenticity, Respondent does not deny the webpage’s evidentiary value. Respondent states via its response that it uses the domain name to address a website that is “a guide to help technology professionals make better decisions.” Respondent expressly denies that it profits from the domain name and further asserts that it is using the term “quora” for its descriptive value. Although Complainant contests, via its Additional Submission, that “quora” is the Latin plural of “quorum,” the term “quora” does have meaning apart from its trademark value. Indeed, the mark appears to the Panel as suggestive of Complainant’s business model which rests loosely on a quorum or “quora” of likeminded participants. But more significantly, Respondent’s use of the confusingly similar domain name is remarkably and inappropriately within the scope of Complainant’s QUORA trademark.
Since there is evidence of Respondent’s intent to capitalize on the goodwill associated with Complainant’s trademark by using the domain name as it does, Respondent’s use of the domain name is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See LendingTree, LLC v. Domain Admin / Whois Privacy Corp., FA1512001654032 (Forum Feb. 4, 2016) (holding that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to hold itself out to the public as a competing loan service did not give rise to any legitimate interest in the domain name). See Bank of Am. Corp. v. Nw. Free Cmty. Access, FA 180704 (Forum Sept. 30, 2003) (“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).”); see also eBay Inc. v. Hong, D2000-1633 (WIPO Jan. 18, 2001) (stating that the respondent’s use of the complainant’s entire mark in domain names makes it difficult to infer a legitimate use).
Given the foregoing, 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 pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
The at-issue domain name was registered and used in bad faith. As discussed below, Policy ¶4(b) specific bad faith circumstances as well as other circumstances lead the Panel to conclude that Respondent acted in bad faith pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
First and as discussed above regarding rights and legitimate interests, Respondent uses the confusingly similar domain name in a manner that competes with services offered under Complainant’s QUORA trademark thereby demonstrating bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ (b)(iv). See Am. Online, Inc. v. Tencent Commc’ns Corp., FA 93668 (Forum Mar. 21, 2000) (finding bad faith where the respondent registered and used a domain name confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark to attract users to a website sponsored by the respondent).
Additionally and as urged by Complainant, the Panel finds that Respondent registered the <techquora.com> domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s QUORA trademark. Respondent’s knowledge of Complainant’s, mark, prior to registering <techquora.com>, is apparent from the notoriety of Complainant’s trademark, from the unique quality of the mark, and from Respondent’s purposing the <techquora.com> website in a manner that is reminiscent of Complainant‘s offering under the QUORA trademark. Significantly, Respondent does not deny that it was aware of Complainant prior to registering <techquora.com>. Respondent’s prior knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the QUORA mark name further indicates that Respondent registered and used the at-issue domain name in bad faith under 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 Yahoo! Inc. v. Butler, FA 744444 (Forum Aug. 17, 2006) (finding bad faith where the respondent was "well-aware of the complainant's YAHOO! mark at the time of registration).
Finally, the fact that a privacy service was, or was not, used by Respondent is of little probative value to this Panel. Cloaking services have a legitimate function that benefits a broad spectrum of domain name registrants. Their use is not a per se mark of bad faith. Likewise, Complainant’s claims via its Additional Submission that Respondent’s offer to transfer the domain name to Complainant shows bad faith under paragraph 4 (b)(i) of the Policy, is unavailing as there is no evidence which supports a finding that the domain name was acquired primarily for the purpose of transferring the domain name registration to the Complainant per Policy ¶ 4(b)(i). Therefore, the Panel discounts Respondent’s offer, made approximately four years subsequent to the domain name’s registration, as being nothing more than an attempt to settle the matter at bar.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <techquora.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist
Dated: July 24, 2017
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page