Indeed, Inc. v. Sunaram Purty
Claim Number: FA1909001864555
Complainant is Indeed, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Justin S. Haddock of Indeed, Inc., Texas, USA. Respondent is Sunaram Purty (“Respondent”), India.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <indeedjobs.us>, registered with GoDaddy.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.
Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on September 30, 2019; the Forum received payment on September 30, 2019.
On September 30, 2019, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <indeedjobs.us> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, LLC 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 September 30, 2019, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of October 21, 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@indeedjobs.us. Also on September 30, 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 October 22, 2019, 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 usTLD Dispute Resolution Policy ("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 usTLD Policy, usTLD 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 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 trademark registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) and other registrations worldwide.
Respondent’s <indeedjobs.us> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s INDEED mark as it incorporates the mark in its entirety, merely adding the generic term “jobs” and a “.us” country code top-level domain (“ccTLD”).
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <indeedjobs.us> domain name. Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant’s INDEED mark and is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Additionally, Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, Respondent uses the domain name to directly compete with Complainant.
Respondent registered and uses the <indeedjobs.us> domain name in bad faith. Respondent attempts to attract, for commercial gain, users to the disputed domain name where it directly competes with Complainant. Furthermore, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the INDEED mark prior to registering the disputed domain name.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant has rights in the INDEED mark through its registration of such mark with the USPTO as well as from its registrations of the mark with other national registrars worldwide.
Complainant’s rights in the INDEED mark existed prior to Respondent’s registration of the at-issue domain name.
Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to offer advertising and services that compete with those services 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.
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 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”).
The at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.
Complainant’s ownership of a USPTO registration for INDEED is sufficient to demonstrate its rights in a mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), as is its registration of the INDEED mark with other national trademark registrars worldwide. 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. . . . Due to Complainant’s attached USPTO registration on the principal register …, the Panel agrees that it has sufficiently demonstrated its rights per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”).
Respondent’s <indeedjobs.us> domain name contains Complainant’s INDEED trademark followed by the generic term “jobs,” all followed by the top level domain names “.us.” The differences between the at-issue domain name and Complainant’s trademark are insufficient to distinguish one from the other for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). In fact, the inclusion of the suggestive term “jobs” in Respondent’s <indeedjobs.us> domain name only adds to any confusion between the domain name and Complainant’s “jobs” related trademark. Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent’s <indeedjobs.us> domain name is identical to Complainant’s INDEED trademark. 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).); see also Crocs, Inc. v. [Registrant], FA 1043196 (Forum Sept. 2, 2007) (determining that “the addition of a ccTLD is irrelevant to the Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis, as a top-level domain is required of all domain names”).
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). Since Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant’s trademark in any capacity and as discussed below there is no evidence supporting a finding pursuant to Policy 4(c) that Respondent has rights or interests in the at-issue domain name, Complainant’s prima facie showing acts conclusively.
The WHOIS information for the at-issue domain name identifies the domain name’s registrant as “Sunaram Purty.” Further, the record before the Panel contains no evidence that might otherwise tend to prove that Respondent is commonly known by the <indeedjobs.us> domain name. The Panel therefore concludes that for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name. See Navistar International Corporation v. N Rahmany, FA1505001620789 (Forum June 8, 2015) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name where the complainant had never authorized the respondent to incorporate its NAVISTAR mark in any domain name registration); see also, 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).
Additionally and as discussed below regarding bad faith, Respondent uses the <indeedjobs.us> domain address a website that offers job search services, a use that is directly competitive to Complainant’s business. Using the at-issue domain name in this manner is not indicative of either a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii), nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See General Motors LLC v. MIKE LEE, FA 1659965 (Forum Mar. 10, 2016) (finding that “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).”).
Given the forgoing, 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).
Respondent’s <indeedjobs.us> domain name was registered and used in bad faith. As discussed below, bad faith circumstances are present which compel the Panel to conclude that Respondent acted in bad faith pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
First, Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to directly compete with Complainant’s business by addressing a website offering job search services similar to those offered by Complainant. Respondent’s use of the <indeedjobs.us> domain name to create the false impression that Respondent is affiliated with Complainant in order to compete with Complainant disrupts Complainant’s business and indicates Respondent’s bad faith registration and use per Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) & (iv). ). See Twitter v. Domain Admin, FA 1607451 (Forum April 2, 2015) (“Respondent’s use of the domain name disrupted Complainant’s business and misappropriated the trademark value of Complainant’s mark to wrangle visitors to its website thereby demonstrating Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).”);see also Citadel LLC and its related entity, KCG IP Holdings, LLC v. Joel Lespinasse / Radius Group, FA1409001579141 (Forum Oct. 15, 2014) (“Here, the Panel finds evidence of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) bad faith as Respondent has used the confusingly similar domain name to promote its own financial management and consulting services in competition with Complainant.”).
Moreover, Respondent registered <indeedjobs.us> knowing that Complainant had trademark rights in the INDEED mark. Respondent’s prior knowledge is evident from the notoriety of Complainant’s trademark and from Respondent’s inclusion of the suggestive term “jobs” in the at-issue domain name. It is thus clear that Respondent intentionally registered the at-issue domain name to improperly exploit its trademark value, rather than for some benign reason. Respondent’s prior knowledge of Complainant's trademark further indicates that Respondent registered and used the <indeedjobs.us> domain name in bad faith pursuant to 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").
Having established all three elements required under the usTLD Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <indeedjobs.us> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist
Dated: October 22, 2019
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page