Reddit, Inc v. Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf et al.
Claim Number: FA2204001994276
Complainant: Reddit, Inc of San Francisco, United States of America.
Respondent: Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf of Reykjavik, Capital Region, Iceland
Leandro J Ferrero/reddit.tube of Panama, Panama.
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: Latin American Telecom LLC
Registrars: 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 Examiner in this proceeding.
Mr. Peter Müller, as Examiner.
Complainant submitted: April 28, 2022
Commencement: April 29, 2022
Response Date: May 3, 2022
Having reviewed the communications records, the Examiner finds that the Forum has discharged its responsibility under URS Procedure Paragraphs 3 and 4 and Rule 4 of the Rules for the Uniform Rapid Suspension System (the "Rules").
Complainant requests that the domain name be suspended for the life of the registration.
Clear and convincing evidence.
No multiple Complainants or Respondents and no multiple disputed domain names require dismissal.
Findings of Fact:
URS Procedure 1.2.6. requires the Complainant to make a prima facie case, proven by clear and convincing evidence, for each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be suspended.
[URS 1.2.6.1.] The registered domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a word mark:
(i) for which the Complainant holds a valid national or regional registration and that is in current use; or
(ii) that has been validated through court proceedings; or
(iii) that is specifically protected by a statute or treaty in effect at the time the URS complaint is filed.
The Complainant provided documentary evidence that it is inter alia registered owner of the United States service mark registration no. 5,103,419 “REDDIT”, which was registered on December 20, 2016 for services in class 42 (hereinafter referred to as the “REDDIT Mark”), as well as documents to show that the trademark is in current use.
The disputed domain name fully incorporates the REDDIT Mark and is identical to such mark. It is well established that the specific top-level domain name is generally not an element of distinctiveness that can be taken into consideration when evaluating the identity or confusing similarity between the complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name.
The Examiner finds that the disputed domain name is identical to the REDDIT Mark and that the Complainant satisfied the elements of URS Procedure 1.2.6.1.
[1.2.6.2.] The Respondent has no legitimate right or interest to the disputed domain name.
The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no legitimate right or interest to the disputed domain name as the Respondent is not commonly known as ''Reddit'' and has no business affiliation with Complainant, as it is neither authorized nor licensed to use the REDDIT Mark, as the disputed domain name would most likely be understood to refer to the Complainant, as the website hosted at the disputed domain name does not adequately disclaim a relationship between the Respondent and the Complainant, and thus contributes further to creating the false impression that the Respondent might be affiliated or endorsed by the Complainant, as the Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, and as the Respondent is only using the domain with intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers to its own website, and to tarnish the Complainant’s trademarks at issue.
The Respondent denies these assertions and states that it is using the disputed domain name as a tool for the Complainant’s users to enable them to download videos with sound from their website.
With that in mind, it is not entirely impossible that the Respondent may invoke its own rights or legitimate interests through its longstanding use of the disputed domain name. In sum, after carefully considering the evidence, the Examiner finds that the evidence is not clear and convincing that the Respondent has no legitimate right or interest to the disputed domain name. Given that the URS is not intended for use in any proceedings with open questions of fact, but only clear cases of trademark abuse, the Examiner finds that the Complainant has not satisfied the elements of URS Procedure 1.2.6.2.
[1.2.6.3.] The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
The Complainant asserts that the Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith. It argues that the Respondent’s bad faith is evidenced by the fact that the Respondent is using the disputed domain to attract Internet users to the Respondent’s website for commercial gain, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s REDDIT Mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of Registrant's website, that the Respondent has further used the disputed domain name to create a false association with the Complainant by registering and using a domain name identical or confusingly similar to the REDDIT Mark, and that the Respondent has gone to great efforts to make the disputed domain appear as if it originates from, is affiliated with, or is otherwise sponsored by Complainant.
The Respondent denies these assertions and states that it created the tool available at the disputed domain name because it was unable to download videos with sound from the Complainant’s website and therefore made a corresponding tool for itself which was later made available online for other of the Complainant’s users.
Although the Examiner is convinced that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith, the Examiner is not able to conclusively examine the facts of the case because the Complainant has failed to submit evidence of the Respondent's use of the disputed domain name. The document submitted, "URS Site Screenshot", contains a screenshot of the Complainant's website and no information regarding the Respondent's website. The Examiner finds that the Complainant has not satisfied the elements of URS Procedure 1.2.6.3.
No abuse or material falsehood.
After reviewing the parties’ submissions, the Examiner determines that the Complainant has NOT demonstrated all three elements of the URS by a standard of clear and convincing evidence; the Examiner hereby Orders the following domain names be RETURNED to the control of Respondent.
<reddit.tube>
Mr. Peter Müller, Examiner
Dated: May 5, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page