UpToDate, Inc. v. Zeeshan Khalid
Claim Number: FA2001001877972
Complainant is UpToDate, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Andrew A. Avsec of Brinks Gilson & Lione, United States. Respondent is Zeeshan Khalid (“Respondent”), Saudi Arabia.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <uptodatefree.com>, 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.
Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on January 7, 2020; the Forum received payment on January 7, 2020.
On January 9, 2020, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <uptodatefree.com> 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 ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On January 14, 2020, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 3, 2020 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@uptodatefree.com. Also on January 14, 2020, 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 February 5, 2020, 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, UpToDate Inc., operates a subscription-based software and online clinical decision support resource.
Complainant has rights in the UPTODATE mark based upon registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”).
Respondent’s <uptodatefree.com> domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark because it wholly incorporates the UPTODATE mark, simply adding the single word “free” and a “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).
Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <uptodatefree.com> domain name because Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and is not authorized or permitted to use Complainant’s mark in any fashion. Additionally, Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, Respondent uses the domain name to impersonate Complainant.
Respondent registered and uses the <uptodatefree.com> domain name in bad faith. Respondent uses the domain name to disrupt Complainant’s business and attract users for commercial gain by impersonating Complainant. Additionally, Respondent has actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the UPTODATE mark based on Respondent’s use of the mark and in conjunction with Complainant’s other information.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant has trademark rights in UPTODATE.
Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and is not authorized to use the UPTODATE mark in any capacity.
Respondent registered the at‑issue domain name after Complainant acquired trademark rights in UPTODATE.
Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to pass itself off as Complainant for commercial gain.
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”).
The at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.
Complainant’s USPTO registration of its UPTODATE mark establishes Complainant’s rights in such mark for the purposes of Policy 4(a)(i). See 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)).
The at-issue domain name contains Complainant’s entire UPTODATE trademark, followed by the generic term “free” and the top level domain name “.com.” The differences between the <uptodatefree.com> domain name and Complainant’s trademark are insufficient to distinguish the domain name from the trademark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). In fact, the inclusion of the suggestive term “free” in the domain name only adds to any confusion as it gives the impression that there is a “free” version of Complainant’s proprietary information. Therefore, the Panel finds that the <uptodatefree.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s UPTODATE mark. See Microsoft Corporation v. Thong Tran Thanh, FA 1653187 (Forum Jan. 21, 2016) (determining that confusing similarity exist where [a disputed domain name] contains Complainant’s entire mark and differs only by the addition of a generic or descriptive phrase and top-level domain, the differences between the domain name and its contained trademark are insufficient to differentiate one from the other for the purposes of the Policy.); see also, American Airlines, Inc. v. Nika Kobakhidze, FA 1626876 (Forum July 30, 2015) (where this Panel previously indicated: “the inclusion of the suggestive term ‘reservations’ [to the end of the mark AmericanAirlines] actually adds to the confusion”).
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 failed to respond, absent evidence of Policy ¶ 4(c) circumstances Complainant’s prima facie showing acts conclusively.
Respondent lacks both rights and legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant’s trademark in any capacity and, as discussed below, there are no Policy ¶ 4(c) circumstances from which the Panel might find that Respondent has rights or interests in respect of the at-issue domain name.
The WHOIS information for <uptodatefree.com> indicates “Zeeshan Khalid” is the domain name’s registrant and there is nothing in the record before the Panel that indicates that Respondent is otherwise known by the <uptodatefree.com> domain name. Given the foregoing, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Coppertown Drive-Thru Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089 (Nat. Arb. 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, Respondent uses the <statefarmsupplement.com> domain name to impersonate Complainant so that it might pass itself off as Complainant. The at-issue domain name addresses a website which is nearly identical to Complainant’s official website. Using the confusingly similar domain name to pass itself off as Complainant, as does Respondent, is not indicative of any bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor of a non-commercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See ShipChain, Inc. v. 谢东东 / 谢东东, FA 1785189 (Forum June 21, 2018) (“The resolving webpages between Complainant’s and Respondent’s websites are virtually the same. Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name does not confer rights and legitimate interests under Policy ¶¶4(c)(i) and (iii).”).
Given the forgoing, Complainant satisfies its initial burden under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) and conclusively demonstrates Respondent’s lack of rights and lack of interests in respect of the at-issue domain name.
Respondent’s <uptodatefree.com> domain name was registered and used in bad faith. As discussed below without limitation, 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.
As mentioned above regarding rights and interests, Respondent uses the <uptodatefree.com> domain name to pass itself off as Complainant. Browsing to the at-issue domain name displays a website nearly identical to Complainant’s website. Indeed, in creating the bogus website Respondent misappropriated copyrighted images and other intellectual property from Complainant that would only be legitimately available from Complainant via subscription. Using the confusingly similar domain name to confuse third parties as to the source of Respondent’s website and its stock-in-trade information, and further to divert internet users from Complainant’s site for commercial gain is evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv). See Artistic Pursuit LLC v. calcuttawebdevelopers.com, FA 894477 (Forum Mar. 8, 2007) (finding that the respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name, which displayed a website virtually identical to the complainant’s website, constituted bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)); see also Bittrex, Inc. v. Wuxi Yilian LLC, FA 1760517 (Forum December 27, 2017) (finding bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where “Respondent registered and uses the <lbittrex.com> domain name in bad faith by directing Internet users to a website that mimics Complainant’s own website in order to confuse users into believing that Respondent is Complainant, or is otherwise affiliated or associated with Complainant.”).
Furthermore, Respondent registered the <uptodatefree.com> domain name knowing that Complainant had trademark rights in the UPTODATE mark. Respondent’s prior knowledge is evident from Respondent’s overt efforts to pass itself off as Complainant as discussed above, as well as from the notoriety of the UPTODATE trademark. Given the forgoing, it is clear that Respondent intentionally registered the at-issue domain name precisely 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 <uptodatefree.com> domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Nat. Arb. 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 ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <uptodatefree.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist
Dated: February 6, 2020
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page