Quora, Inc. v. michael M
Claim Number: FA1711001758697
Complainant is Quora, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Laura M. Franco of Winston & Strawn LLP, California, USA. Respondent is michael M (“Respondent”), China.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <examquora.com>, registered with Name.com, 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.
Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on November 15, 2017; the Forum received payment on November 15, 2017.
On Nov 15, 2017, Name.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <examquora.com> domain name is registered with Name.com, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Name.com, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Name.com, 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 November 20, 2017, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of December 11, 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@examquora.com. Also on November 20, 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 December 13, 2017, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Paul M. DeCicco 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 contends as follows:
Complainant, Quora, Inc. uses the QUORA mark to operate a popular collaborative, information-sharing and learning website.
Complainant has rights in the fanciful QUORA mark based upon its registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g. Reg. No. 4,320,788, registered Apr. 16, 2013).
Respondent’s <examquora.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s QUORA mark, as the domain name incorporates the mark in its entirety and adds the generic word “exam.”
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <examquora.com> domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Complainant authorized or licensed Respondent to use the QUORA mark in any manner. Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name does not amount to a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, Respondent uses the domain name to derive revenue based on a false suggestion of affiliation with or approval by Complainant. Specifically, the domain name persuades users arriving at the site to click through links to purchase exam preparation materials.
Respondent’s registration and use of the <examquora.com> domain name in an attempt to capitalize on Complainant’s goodwill to draw people to its site for direct pecuniary gain is demonstrative of its bad faith. Additionally, Respondent had constructive or actual knowledge of Complainant’s mark at the time it registered and subsequently used the domain name.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant has rights in the QUORA mark via its registration of such mark with the USPTO.
Respondent registered the at-issue domain name after Complainant acquired rights in the QUORA mark.
Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant’s QUORA trademark.
Respondent uses the domain name to address a website that is displaying hyperlinks and offering products that compete with the products 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.”).
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 <examquora.com> domain name contains Complainant’s entire QUORA trademark prefixed with the descriptive term “exam.” Respondent completes the domain name by adding a necessary top-level domain name, here “.com.” Nevertheless, the 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. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent’s domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s QUORA mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). ). See 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). Here, Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use Complainant’s trademark in any capacity and there is no evidence under Policy ¶ 4(c) or otherwise that counters Complainant’s prima facie showing.
WHOIS information for the at-issue domain name identifies the domain name’s registrant as “michael M.” Further, the record before the Panel contains no evidence which might support a finding that Respondent is commonly known by the <examquora.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 <examquora.com> 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 uses the confusingly similar <examquora.com> domain name to address a website that is being used to mislead internet users as to the sponsorship of that website so that they might click on displayed hyperlinks and/or purchase exam materials. Respondent benefits from such endeavor either through click-through fees or via the sale of the offered materials. Respondent’s use of the domain name in this manner 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 Summit Group, LLC v. LSO, Ltd., FA 758981 (Forum Sept. 14, 2006) (finding that the respondent’s use of the complainant’s LIFESTYLE LOUNGE mark to redirect Internet users to respondent’s own website for commercial gain does not constitute either 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 also, 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).”);
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. Policy ¶4(b) specific bad faith circumstances, as well as other circumstances, instruct the Panel to conclude that Respondent acted in bad faith pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
As touched on above regarding rights and legitimate interests, Respondent uses the <examquora.com> domain name to capitalize on the goodwill in Complainant’s QUORA trademark by exploiting internet user confusion regarding the sponsorship of the <examquora.com> website. Respondent’s <examquora.com> website displays hyperlinks to websites competing with Complainant and also offers competitive material for sale directly to third party website visitors. Such use of the <examquora.com> domain name demonstrates bad faith per Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv). See Health Republic Insurance Company v. Above.com Legal, FA1506001622088 (Forum July 10, 2015) (“The use of a domain name’s resolving website to host links to competitors of a complainant shows intent to disrupt that complainant’s business, thereby showing bad faith in use and registration under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).”); see also Capital One Financial Corp. v. Above.com Domain Privacy / Above.com Domain Privacy, FA1501001598657 (Forum Feb. 20, 2015) (“This Panel agrees that Respondent’s use [as shown in the record] illustrates that Respondent here seeks commercial gain through a likelihood of confusion, as competing hyperlinks have been found to establish evidence of intent to seek commercial gain through referral fees, and thus demonstrates bad faith registration under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).”).
Additionally, Respondent registered the <examquora.com> domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s QUORA trademark. Respondent’s actual knowledge of Complainant’s mark prior to registering <examquora.com> is apparent from the notoriety of Complainant’s trademark, from the unique quality of the mark, and from Respondent’s use of the <examquora.com> website to compete with Complainant’s QUORA related offerings. 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).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <examquora.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist
Dated: December 14, 2017
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page