Quora, Inc. v. sebastin legarr
Claim Number: FA1710001753002
Complainant is Quora, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Laura M. Franco of Winston & Strawn LLP, California, USA. Respondent is sebastin legarr (“Respondent”), Chile.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <quorabook.com>, registered with NameCheap, Inc.
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.
Kenneth L. Port as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on October 10, 2017; the Forum received payment on October 10, 2017.
On October 10, 2017, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <quorabook.com> domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameCheap, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameCheap, Inc. 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 October 12, 2017, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of November 1, 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@quorabook.com. Also on October 12, 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 November 6, 2017, 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, Quora, Inc., operates a collaborative, information-sharing website. Complainant uses its QUORA mark to promote its products and services and registered the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 4,119,032, registered Mar. 27, 2012). See Compl. Ex. C. Respondent’s <quorabook.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant’s QUORA mark because it appends the generic or descriptive term “book.”
Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <quorabook.com> domain name. Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its QUORA mark in any fashion, and Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Respondent is not using 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 confusingly similar domain name to first divert Internet users from Complainant’s site to Respondent’s search engine site, and subsequently to third-party websites to generate click-through advertising revenue. See Compl. Ex. E.
Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent attempts to disrupt the business of Complainant —under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)—by offering competing services. See Compl. Ex. E. Respondent is also attempting to attract Internet traffic and commercially benefit from the goodwill of the QUORA mark by creating confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its website by promoting its competing business. Finally, due to the fame of the mark, Respondent had actual, or at least constructive, knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the QUORA mark at the time of registration.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. Respondent registered <quorabook.com> on August 14, 2017.
Given that Respondent, in email correspondence with the Forum, has acquiesced to the transfer of the domain name, such transfer is hereby ordered and the Panel shall forgo a full three factor analysis.
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.”).
On October 12, 2017 and October 13, 2017, Respondent sent email communications to the Forum stating its express desire to “not dispute the claim” and that it “has no problem” with transferring the disputed domain to Complainant.
As such, the Panel finds that Respondent has acquiesced to the transfer of the dispute domain name and, therefore, the Panel will forgo the full three factor analysis.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be granted.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <quorabook.com> domain name transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
Kenneth L. Port, Panelist
Dated: November 7, 2017
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page