Quora, Inc. v. Yoav Bernstein
Claim Number: FA1706001736827
Complainant is Quora, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Patchen M. Haggerty of Perkins Coie LLP, Washington, USA. Respondent is Yoav Bernstein (“Respondent”), Israel.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <quoramarketing.org>, registered with eNom, LLC.
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.
Richard Hill as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on June 21, 2017; the Forum received payment on June 21, 2017.
On June 23, 2017, eNom, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <quoramarketing.org> domain name is registered with eNom, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. eNom, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the eNom, 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@quoramarketing.org. 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.
Having received no response from Respondent, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On July 20, 2017, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Richard Hill 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 states that it engages in the production and marketing of software, social-networking, and web services as of 2010, and has been using the mark QUORA continuously since that time. In particular, Complainant provides computer software for users to ask and answer questions on a variety of topics of general interest; computer software for users to participate in discussions, get feedback from their peers, form virtual communities, and engage in social networking. The QUORA mark was registered in the United States in 2012. It is also registered elsewhere around the world and it is well known.
According to Complainant, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its mark as it includes the entirety of the QUORA mark in combination with the descriptive term “marketing” and the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.org.” Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
Complainant alleges that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and Complainant has not granted Respondent permission or license to use the QUORA mark any purpose. Respondent is not using the disputed domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or for a legitimate non-commercial or fair use. Rather, Respondent uses the domain name to divert users away from Complainant’s web site and to redirect them to a web site that appears to be affiliated with Complainant. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
Further, says Complainant, Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith. First, Respondent is using the disputed domain name domain name to pass itself off as Complainant and to mislead Internet users to believe that Complainant is the source of, or is otherwise related to or affiliated with, Respondent’s website. Second, Respondent registered the domain name using a privacy service to conceal its identity. Finally, Respondent had actual or constructive knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the QUORA mark at the time it registered and subsequently used the disputed domain name. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant has rights in the mark QUORA dating back to at least 2012.
The disputed domain name was registered in 2016.
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark.
The disputed domain name resolves to a web site that prominently displays Complainant’s QUORA mark and offers services similar to those offered by Complainant.
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 disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s QUORA mark as it includes the entirety of the mark in combination with the descriptive term “marketing”. The inclusion of the descriptive term “marketing” in the disputed domain name does not mitigate the confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and Complainant’s QUORA mark. 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). Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use the QUORA mark in any way. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name: where a response is lacking, WHOIS information can support a finding that a respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. See Alaska Air Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines v. Song Bin, FA1408001574905 (Forum Sept. 17, 2014) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name as demonstrated by the WHOIS information and based on the fact that the complainant had not licensed or authorized the respondent to use its ALASKA AIRLINES mark.) The WHOIS information of record identifies Respondent as “Yoav Bernstein.” Additionally, lack of evidence in the record to indicate that the respondent had been authorized to register a domain name using a complainant’s mark supports a finding that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. See Navistar International Corporation v. N Rahmany, FA1505001620789 (Forum June 8, 2015) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name where the complainant had never authorized the respondent to incorporate its NAVISTAR mark in any domain name registration). The Panel therefore finds under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) that Respondent has not been commonly known by the disputed domain name.
Respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name is evinced by its failure to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. The disputed domain name is used to attempt to divert Internet users away from Complainant’s website to a website that appears to be affiliated with or endorsed by Complainant: the web site prominently displays Complainant’s QUORA, as well as information pertaining to Complainant’s business. 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).”). Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent has not made any bona fide offering of goods or services or any legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).
Respondent (who did not reply to Complainant’s contentions) has not presented any plausible explanation for its use of Complainant’s mark in the disputed domain name. In accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel shall draw such inferences from Respondent’s failure to reply as it considers appropriate. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent did not have a legitimate use in mind when registering the disputed domain name.
Indeed, as already noted, Respondent is using the disputed domain name to pass off as Complainant and to create a likelihood for confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the disputed domain name to commercially benefit by offering competing goods or services. Commercially benefiting by creating confusion in prospective users can lead to a finding of bad faith registration and use. See Citadel LLC and its related entity, KCG IP Holdings, LLC v. Joel Lespinasse / Radius Group, FA1409001579141 (ForumOctober 15, 2014) (“Here, the Panel finds evidence of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) bad faith as Respondent has used the confusingly similar domain name to promote its own financial management and consulting services in competition with Complainant.”); see also Xylem Inc. and Xylem IP Holdings LLC v. YinSi BaoHu YiKaiQi, FA1504001612750 (Forum May 13, 2015) (“The Panel agrees that Respondent’s use of the website to display products similar to Complainant’s, imputes intent to attract Internet users for commercial gain, and finds bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).”). Thus the Panel finds that Respondent attempted to commercially benefit off Complainant’s mark in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <quoramarketing.org> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Richard Hill, Panelist
Dated: July 21, 2017
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page