Indeed, Inc. v. puneet aggarwal
Claim Number: FA1907001852301
Complainant is Indeed, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Justin Haddock of Indeed, Inc., Texas, USA. Respondent is puneet aggarwal (“Respondent”), India.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <indeedjobslink.com>, registered with Domainshype.com, LLC..
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.
Hon. Karl v. Fink (Ret.) as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on July 17, 2019; the Forum received payment on July 17, 2019.
On July 17, 2019, Domainshype.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <indeedjobslink.com> domain name is registered with Domainshype.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Domainshype.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Domainshype.com, 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 July 18, 2019, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 7, 2019 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@indeedjobslink.com. Also on July 18, 2019, 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 August 8, 2019, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Hon. Karl V. Fink (Ret.) 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 provides the world’s largest job site, with over 200 million unique visitors every month from over 60 different countries. Complainant has rights in the INDEED mark through its registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g. Reg. No. 3,141,242, registered Sep. 12, 2006). Respondent’s <indeedjobslink.com> is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s INDEED mark. The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant’s INDEED mark in its entirety and adds the generic terms “jobs” and “link” along with the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <indeedjobslink.com> domain name. Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant’s INDEED mark nor commonly known by the disputed domain name. Respondent fails to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent uses the disputed domain name to divert users to a website that offers job search services in direct competition with Complainant.
Respondent registered and is using the <indeedjobslink.com> domain name in bad faith by attempting to create a likelihood of confusion with Complainant. Respondent also redirects Internet users to a website that offers competing services to Complainant. Respondent uses an email address from the disputed domain name in attempts to fraudulently acquire financial information from Complainant’s customers. Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the INDEED mark.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
For the reasons set forth below, the Panel finds Complainant is entitled to the requested relief of transfer of the <indeedjobslink.com> 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 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 set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at ¶ 4.3; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (“Because Complainant did not produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations [. . .] the Panel finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint”).
Complainant claims to have rights in the INDEED mark through its registration with the USPTO. Registration of a mark with the USPTO is sufficient to establish rights in a mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Liberty Global Logistics, LLC v. damilola emmanuel / tovary services limited, FA 1738536 (Forum Aug. 4, 2017) (“Registration of a mark with the USPTO sufficiently establishes the required rights in the mark for purposes of the Policy.”). Here, Complainant has provided the Panel with a copy of its USPTO registration for the INDEED mark (e.g. Reg. No. 3,141,242, registered Sep. 12, 2006). The Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the INDEED mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant argues that Respondent’s <indeedjobslink.com> domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s INDEED mark. Registration of a domain name that includes a fully formed mark and adds generic terms in addition to a gTLD does not distinguish the domain name from the mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Wiluna Holdings, LLC v. Edna Sherman, FA 1652781 (Forum Jan. 22, 2016) (finding the addition of a generic term and gTLD is insufficient in distinguishing a disputed domain name from a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)). Here, Complainant argues that Respondent’s disputed domain name incorporates Complainant’s INDEED mark in its entirety and adds the generic terms “jobs” and “link” along with the “.com” gTLD. The Panel finds that Respondent’s disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s INDEED mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant has proved this element.
Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)); see also Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) (“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”). The Panel finds Complainant has made a prima facie case.
Complainant argues Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interest in the <indeedjobslink.com> domain name as Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name nor has Respondent been given license or consent to use the INDEED mark or register domain names using Complainant’s mark. WHOIS information may be used to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. LY Ta, FA 1789106 (Forum June 21, 2018) (concluding a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name where the complainant asserted it did not authorize the respondent to use the mark, and the relevant WHOIS information indicated the respondent is not commonly known by the domain name). Additionally, lack of authorization to use a complainant’s mark may indicate that the respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. See Emerson Electric Co. v. golden humble / golden globals, FA 1787128 (Forum June 11, 2018) (“lack of evidence in the record to indicate a respondent is authorized to use [the] complainant’s mark may support a finding that [the] respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)”). The WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the registrant as “Puneet Aggarwal” and there is no evidence to suggest that Respondent was authorized to use the INDEED mark or was commonly known by the disputed domain name. The Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
Complainant argues that Respondent fails to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent uses the disputed domain name to divert users to a website that offers job search services in direct competition with Complainant. Use of a disputed domain name to offer services in direct competition with a complainant is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See General Motors LLC v. MIKE LEE, FA 1659965 (Forum Mar. 10, 2016) (“use of a domain to sell products and/or services that compete directly with a complainant’s business does not constitute 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).”). Here, Complainant has provided screenshots of Respondent’s <indeedjobslink.com> domain name’s resolving webpage that shows career services and posting which are similar to services offered by Complainant. The Panel finds that Respondent has failed to make a bona fide offering of goods or services for legitimate noncommercial or fair use and Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name.
Complainant has proved this element.
Complainant argues that Respondent registered and is using the <indeedjobslink.com> domain name in bad faith by attempting to create a likelihood of confusion with Complainant. Use of a disputed domain name to create a likelihood of confusion with complainant is evidence of bad faith registration and use per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See BBY Solutions, Inc. v. Grant Ritzwoller, FA 1703389 (Forum Dec. 21, 2016) (finding bad faith because the <bestbuyus.com> domain name was obviously connected with the complainant’s well-known BEST BUY mark, thus creating a likelihood of confusion strictly for commercial gain). Complainant argues that Respondent uses Complainant’s INDEED mark in the disputed domain name to confuse internet users, evidence of bad faith registration and use.
Complainant further argues that Respondent uses the <indeedjobslink.com> to offer competing services. Use of a disputed domain name to offer competing services may be evidence of bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See CAN Financial Corporation v. William Thomson / CNA Insurance, FA1401001541484 (Forum Feb. 28, 2014) (finding that the respondent had engaged in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv), by using a confusingly similar domain name to attract Internet users to its own website where it sold competing insurance services). Complainant has provided screenshots of the disputed domain name’s resolving webpage that shows career services and postings which are similar to services offered by Complainant. The Panel finds that this is evidence Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
Complainant contends that Respondent uses an email address in association with the <indeedjobslink.com> domain name in attempts to fraudulently acquire financial information from Complainant’s customers. Use of an email address associated with a disputed domain to attempt to obtain personal and financial information is evidence of bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Zoetis Inc. and Zoetis Services LLC v. VistaPrint Technologies Ltd, FA1506001623601 (Forum July 14, 2015) (“Respondent’s attempt to use the <zoietis.com> domain name to phish for personal information in fraudulent emails also constitutes bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”). Complainant has provided the Panel with an email chain where Respondent uses an email address associated with the disputed domain name that attempts to gain financial information from Complainant’s customers. This is evidence that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Complainant argues that Respondent had knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the INDEED mark. Although panels have not generally regarded constructive notice to be sufficient for a finding of bad faith, actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the mark prior to registering the disputed domain name is adequate to find bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Orbitz Worldwide, LLC v. Domain Librarian, FA 1535826 (Forum Feb. 6, 2014) (“The Panel notes that although the UDRP does not recognize ‘constructive notice’ as sufficient grounds for finding Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) bad faith, the Panel here finds actual knowledge through the name used for the domain and the use made of it.”). Use of a disputed domain name that contains a famous mark may be evidence of actual knowledge. See Snap Inc. v. Deepika Priyadarshinie / entsl, FA 1788600 (Forum June 21, 2018) (finding the respondent had actual knowledge of the complainant and its rights in the claimed mark due to the fame of the mark, established by the complainant’s submission of numerous articles regarding the success of the complainant’s product). Complainant has provided information that it has used the INDEED mark for over 10 years. The Panel finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s INDEED mark and registered and uses the domain name in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Complainant has proved this element.
DECISION
Complainant having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the <indeedjobslink.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Hon. Karl V. Fink (Ret.) Panelist
Dated: August 15, 2019
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page