Indeed, Inc. v. Zhurul Haque
Claim Number: FA1808001801270
Complainant is Indeed, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Anne Krarup of Indeed, Inc., Texas, USA. Respondent is Zhurul Haque (“Respondent”).
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <indeed-job.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.
Kenneth L. Port as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on August 14, 2018; the Forum received payment on August 14, 2018.
On August 14, 2018, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <indeed-job.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 August 16, 2018, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 5, 2018 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@indeed-job.us. Also on August 16, 2018, 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 September 7, 2018, 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 to 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, Indeed, Inc., provides the world’s largest job site, with over 200 million unique visitors every month from over 60 countries. Complainant uses its INDEED mark to promote its products and services and established rights in the mark through registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 3,141,242, registered Sep. 12, 2006). See Compl. Ex. C. Respondent’s <indeed-job.us> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s INDEED mark as it merely adds a hyphen, the generic term “job,” and the country-code top-level domain (“ccTLD”) “.us.”
Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <indeed-job.us> domain name. Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its INDEED mark in any fashion. Respondent is also not commonly known by the disputed domain name as the WHOIS information of record lists “Zhurul Haque” as the registrant. See Compl. Ex. A. Respondent is not using the <indeed-job.us> domain name in connection with any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent uses the domain name to resolve to a website purporting to offer job search, job listing, resume building and related services identical in nature to the services offered by Complainant under the INDEED mark. Further, the website also features links that divert Internet users to Complainant’s own <indeed.com> website and other websites offering competing services.
Respondent registered and is using the <indeed-job.us> domain name in bad faith. Respondent is using the domain name to create confusion with Complainant’s mark for Respondent’s commercial gain. Further, Respondent registered the <indeed-job.us> domain name with full knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the INDEED mark.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. Respondent registered the <indeed-job.us> on June 1, 2018.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar with Complainant’s trademark; that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in or to the disputed domain name; and that Respondent has engaged in bad faith use and registration of the disputed domain name.
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 Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“UDRP”) and the usTLD Policy, the Panel will draw upon UDRP precedent 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 Panel finds that the disputed domain name, <indeed-job.us>, is confusingly similar to Complainant’s valid and subsisting trademark, INDEED. Complainant has adequately plead its rights and interests in and to this trademark. Respondent arrives at the disputed domain name by merely adding a hyphen and the generic word “job” plus the ccTLD “.us” to Complainant’s trademark. This is insufficient to distinguish the disputed domain name from Complainant’s trademark.
As such, the Panel finds the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark.
The Panel also finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in and to the disputed domain name. Respondent has no right, permission or license to register the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name.
Additionally, Respondent is not using the <indeed-job.us> 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 to resolve to a website purporting to offer job search, job listing, resume building and related services identical in nature to the services offered by Complainant under the INDEED mark. Further, the website also features links that divert Internet users to Complainant’s own <indeed.com> website and other websites offering competing services.
As such, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in or to the disputed domain name.
The Panel further finds that Respondent has engaged in bad faith use and registration of the disputed domain name. Complainant argues that Respondent is using the disputed domain name to create confusion with Complainant’s mark for Respondent’s commercial gain by resolving to a website featuring competing services and competing hyperlinks. Per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv), use of a domain name to attract Internet users and create confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the content therein may evidence bad faith. See 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).”); see also Capital One Financial Corp. v. DN Manager / Whois-Privacy.Net Ltd, FA1504001615034 (Forum June 4, 2015) (holding that the respondent’s use of the <capitaloneonebank.com> domain name to display links to the complainant’s competitors, such as Bank of America, Visa, Chase and American Express constituted bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)). Complainant provided screenshots of the <indeed-job.us> website, which indicate that the site features job search services that directly compete with Complainant’s business, as well as links for Complainant’s competitors. See Compl. Ex. D. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
Further, Complainant alleges that Respondent registered the <indeed-job.us> domain name with full knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the INDEED mark. Here, Complainant’s INDEED mark has created significant good will and consumer recognition around the world and was first used by Complainant in 2006. See Compl. p. 3. Moreover, Complainant argues that Respondent’s actual knowledge is evidenced by Respondent’s use of the domain name to resolve to a website offering services that directly compete with Complainant’s business and links that redirect users to Complainant’s own website. See Compl. Ex. D. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights when the disputed domain name was registered and subsequently used.
As such, the Panel finds that Respondent has engaged in bad faith use and registration of the disputed domain name.
Having established all three elements required under the usTLD Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <indeed-job.us> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Kenneth L. Port, Panelist
Dated: September 9, 2018
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page