Postmates Inc. v. Aaron Solos
Claim Number: FA2003001887922
Complainant is Postmates Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Chelsea E. Carbone of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, United States. Respondent is Aaron Solos (“Respondent”), United States.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <postmates-support.com>, 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.
Richard Hill as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on March 11, 2020; the Forum received payment on March 11, 2020.
On March 12, 2020, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <postmates-support.com> 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 ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On March 12, 2020, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 1, 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@postmates-support.com. Also on March 12, 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 April 3, 2020, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Richard Hill 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 states that it owns and operates an on-demand delivery platform. Complainant’s software platform connects customers with local couriers to facilitate the prompt delivery of anything from any nearby store or restaurant. Complainant gives customers, across more than 4,200 U.S. cities, covering 80% of U.S. households, access to over 65,000 merchants with real-time deliveries. As of the first quarter of 2019, Complainant had over $2.5 billion in gross merchandise value, and it currently enables over 6.5 million orders per month. Complainant has rights in the POSTMATES mark based upon registration in the United States in 2014.
Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is nearly identical to its mark because it incorporates the mark in its entirely and merely adds the descriptive term “support” and the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).
According to Complainant, Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not licensed or permitted to use Complainant’s POSTMATES mark and is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Additionally, Respondent doesn’t use the disputed domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent uses the domain to pass off as Complainant in order to phish for personal identifying information.
Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent disrupts Complainant’s business and attempts to attract Internet users to its competing website by passing off as Complainant in furtherance of a phishing scheme. Additionally, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the POSTMATES mark as shown through the design of Respondent’s website.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant owns the mark POSTMATES and uses it to provide on-time delivery services.
Complainant’s rights in its mark date back to 2012.
The disputed domain name was registered in 2020.
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its marks.
Respondent uses the disputed domain name to pass off as Complainant to conduct a phishing scheme.
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 disputed domain name incorporates Complainant’s mark in its entirety and merely adds a hyphen, the descriptive term “support” and the “.com” gTLD. Adding a hyphen, generic or descriptive term, and a gTLD to a registered mark may be insufficient to distinguish a domain name from a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Empowered Medical Solutions, Inc. d/b/a QRS-Direct and QRS Magnovit AG v. NULL NULL / QUANTRON RESONANCE SYSTEMS / JIM ANDERSON / HTR / unknown HTR / HTR, FA 1784937 (Forum June 8, 2018) (“Adding or removing descriptive terms or a gTLD is insufficient to differentiate a disputed domain name from a complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”); see also nnomed Techs., Inc. v. DRP Servs., FA 221171 (Forum Feb. 18, 2004) (finding that hyphens and top-level domains are irrelevant for purposes of the Policy). Thus, the Panel find that the<postmates-support.com> domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s POSTMATES mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Respondent is not licensed or permitted to use Complainant’s POSTMATES mark and is not commonly known by the disputed domain name: when no response is submitted, WHOIS information can be used to show that a respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See H-D U.S.A., LLC, v. ilyas Aslan / uok / Domain Admin ContactID 5645550 / FBS INC / Whoisprotection biz, FA 1785313 (Forum June 25, 2018) (“The publicly available WHOIS information identifies Respondent as ‘Ilyas Aslan’ and so there is no prima facie evidence that Respondent might be commonly known by either of the [<harleybot.bid> and <harleybot.com>] domain names.”). Here, the WHOIS information of record notes “Aaron Solos” as the registrant. Thus the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
The disputed domain name displays Complainant’s mark and displays a form prompting users to enter personal information. Passing off as a complainant to conduct a phishing scheme is evidence that a respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) & (iii). See DaVita Inc. v. Cynthia Rochelo, FA 1738034 (Forum July 20, 2017) (”Passing off in furtherance of a phishing scheme is not considered a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use.”). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not using the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). And the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Respondent (who did not reply to Complainant’s contentions) has not presented any plausible explanation for its use of Complainant’s mark. In accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel shall draw such inferences from Respondent’s failure to reply as it considers appropriate. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent did not have a legitimate use in mind when registering the disputed domain name.
Indeed, as already noted, Respondent uses the disputed domain name to phish for Internet users’ personal information. This is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Wells Fargo & Co. v. Maniac State, FA 608239 (Forum Jan. 19, 2006) (finding bad faith registration and use where the respondent was using the <wellsbankupdate.com> domain name in order to fraudulently acquire the personal and financial information of the complainant’s customers); see also Hess Corp. v. GR, FA 770909 (Forum Sept. 19, 2006) (finding that the respondent demonstrated bad faith registration and use because it was attempting to acquire the personal and financial information of Internet users through a confusingly similar domain name). Consequently, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith in the sense of the Policy.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <postmates-support.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Richard Hill, Panelist
Dated: April 3, 2020
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page