Facebook, Inc. v. Pratap Parsoriya
Claim Number: FA1712001762972
Complainant is Facebook, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by David Taylor of Hogan Lovells (Paris) LLP, France. Respondent is Pratap Parsoriya ("Respondent"), India.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <geeksforfb.us>, registered with NameCheap, 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.
David E. Sorkin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on December 15, 2017; the Forum received payment on December 15, 2017.
On Dec 15, 2017, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by email to the Forum that the <geeksforfb.us> 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 the U.S. Department of Commerce's usTLD Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy").
On December 18, 2017, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of January 8, 2018 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via email to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@geeksforfb.us. Also on December 18, 2017, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the email 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 January 10, 2018, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed David E. Sorkin 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 the usTLD Dispute Resolution Policy ("Rules"). Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the usTLD Policy, usTLD Rules, the National Arbitration 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 is a provider of online social networking services, primarily through its website at <www.facebook.com>. Complainant launched in 2004 and rapidly developed worldwide renown and goodwill. Complainant currently has more than 2 billion active users. India is the country with the largest number of users. Complainant's main website is the 3rd most visited website in the world and in the United States, and the 4th most visited website in India. Complainant's FACEBOOK brand ranked 8th among global brands in 2017.
Complainant claims rights in FACEBOOK and FB, among other marks, and holds trademark registrations for FB as a standard character mark in the United States and other jurisdictions. Complainant asserts that the FB mark is strongly associated with Complainant, and that all of the top Google search results for "fb" refer to Complainant. Complainant owns the <fb.com> domain name, which it redirects to <www.facebook.com>, along with other domain names corresponding to or incorporating its FB mark. Complainant also notes that it has prevailed in proceedings involving FB-formative domain names registered by others under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy ("UDRP").
Respondent registered the disputed domain name <geeksforfb.us> in May 2017. The domain name is being used for a website that purports to provide "support solutions for social media," prominently displaying Complainant's FACEBOOK mark and an inauthentic version of a Facebook certification badge. The website uses the same blue and white color scheme as Complainant's site. Complainant asserts that Respondent is using the disputed domain name and associated website as part of a fraudulent scheme to hack accounts of Complainant's users or otherwise compromise users' online safety, noting that the website shares various attributes with other fraudulent sites.
Complainant contends on these grounds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights; that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered or is being used in bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered or is being used 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 or is being used in bad faith.
Given the similarity between the UDRP and the usTLD Policy, the Panel will draw upon prior UDRP decisions as applicable in rendering its decision.
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 <geeksforfb.us> prefixes Complainant's registered FB mark with the descriptive term "geeks for" (omitting the space) and appends the ".us" top-level domain. These additions do not substantially distinguish the domain name from Complainant's mark. See, e.g., Facebook, Inc. & Instagram, LLC v. Adam Szulewski, D2016-2380 (WIPO Jan. 24, 2017) (finding <buyfblikee.top>, <buyfblikesandfans.top>, <buyfblikes.top>, <getfbfans.top>, <morefblikes.top>, and <socialfbpopularity.top> confusingly similar to FB); Facebook, Inc. v. Emma Boiton, D2016-0623 (WIPO May 16, 2016) (finding <fbatwork.com> confusingly similar to FB). The Panel therefore considers the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights.
Under the Policy, Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and then the burden shifts to Respondent to come forward with concrete evidence of such rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm't Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006).
The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's registered mark. The associated website seems designed to confuse Internet users into believing that it is associated with or endorsed by Complainant, and is likely part of a fraudulent scheme. Cf. Facebook, Inc. & Instagram, LLC v. Adam Szulewski, supra (finding lack of rights or legitimate interests where domain names incorporating FB and FACEBOOK marks were used to direct traffic to a website offering "likes" and "followers").
Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name, and Respondent has failed to come forward with any evidence of such rights or interests. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has sustained its burden of proving that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
Finally, Complainant must show that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Under paragraph 4(b)(iii) of the Policy, bad faith may be shown by evidence that Respondent registered the disputed domain name "primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor." Under paragraph 4(b)(iv), bad faith may be shown by evidence that "[b]y using the domain name, [Respondent] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [Respondent's] web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [Respondent's] web site or location or of a product or service on [Respondent's] web site or location."
Respondent registered and is using a domain name that is incorporates Complainant's trademark for a website designed to create and profit from confusion with Complainant, likely as part of a fraudulent scheme. This behavior is indicative of bad faith registration and use under paragraphs 4(b)(iii) and 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. See, e.g., eBay Inc. v. Mohd. mohd.Danish / westernenterprises, FA 1756923 (Forum Dec. 1, 2017) (finding bad faith where domain name was used for website displaying complainant's mark in a similar font and color scheme, allegedly in connection with a fraudulent phishing scheme). The Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered or is being used in bad faith.
Having considered the three elements required under the usTLD Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <geeksforfb.us> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
David E. Sorkin, Panelist
Dated: January 11, 2018
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page