Crunchbase, Inc. v. work ing
Claim Number: FA2207002004177
Complainant is Crunchbase, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Holly Pranger of Pranger Law PC, California, USA. Respondent is work ing (“Respondent”), Iowa, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <crunchbasetrade.co>, 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 July 14, 2022; the Forum received payment on July 14, 2022.
On July 14, 2022, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <crunchbasetrade.co> 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 July 18, 2022, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 8, 2022 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@crunchbasetrade.co. Also on July 18, 2022, 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 12, 2022, 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 is a California-based global manufacturing and technology company.
Complainant claims rights in the CRUNCHBASE mark through registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”).
The at-issue domain name <crunchbasetrade.co> is confusingly similar because it wholly incorporates Complainant’s mark, differing only through the addition of the term “trade” and the “.co” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).
Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the <crunchbasetrade.co> domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name, nor has Complainant authorized Respondent to use the CRUNCHBASE mark in any way. Additionally, Respondent fails to use the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent uses the at-issue domain to pass off as Complainant, falsely purporting to offer services similar to those actually offered by Complainant.
Respondent registered and uses the <crunchbasetrade.co> domain name in bad faith. Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to pass off as Complainant and fraudulently offer services similar to those actually offered by Complainant while creating confusion among internet users. Furthermore, Respondent had constructive knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the CRUNCHBASE mark prior to registration of the disputed domain.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant has rights in the CRUNCHBASE trademark.
Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and had not been authorized to use Complainant’s trademark in any capacity.
Respondent registered the at‑issue domain name after Complainant acquired rights in the CRUNCHBASE trademark
Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to address a website designed to look like it is affiliated with Complainant so as to divert individuals to such website where Respondent offers products similar to Complainant’s own products.
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 shows that it has a USPTO registration along with multiple other national trademark registrations for its CRUNCHBASE trademark. Any of such registrations is sufficient to demonstrate Complainant’s rights in the CRUNCHBASE mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Google LLC v. Bhawana Chandel / Admission Virus, FA 1799694 (Forum Sep. 4, 2018) (“Complainant has rights in the GMAIL mark based upon its registration of the mark with numerous trademark agencies around the world.”); see also Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Jimmy Yau, FA 1764034 (Forum Jan. 25, 2018) (“The Panel finds that complainant has rights in BLOOMBERG mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) based upon its registration with multiple trademark agencies, including the USPTO.”).
Respondent’s <crunchbasetrade.co> domain name consists of Complainant’s entire CRUNCHBASE trademark followed by the term “trade” and with all followed by the “.co” top-level domain name. The differences between Respondent’s domain name and Complainant’s trademark fail to distinguish the domain name from Complainant’s trademark for the purposes of the Policy. Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent’s <crunchbasetrade.co> domain name is confusingly similar to CRUNCHBASE pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Microsoft Corporation v. Thong Tran Thanh, FA 1653187 (Forum Jan. 21, 2016) (determining that confusing similarity exists 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).
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, 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 the at-issue domain name identifies the domain name’s registrant as “work ing” and the record before the Panel contains no evidence tending to prove that Respondent is commonly known by the <crunchbasetrade.co> domain name or by CRUNCHBASE. The Panel therefore concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by <crunchbasetrade.co> for the purposes of 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.”); see also, Alaska Air Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines v. Song Bin, FA1408001574905 (Forum Sept. 17, 2014) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name as demonstrated by the WHOIS information and based on the fact that the complainant had not licensed or authorized the respondent to use its ALASKA AIRLINES mark).
Additionally, Respondent uses the confusingly similar <crunchbasetrade.co> domain name to address a website that pretends to be affiliated with Complainant so that it may purport to offer products and/or services similar to Complainant’s offering. Respondent’s use of the domain name in this manner indicates neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4 (c)(i), nor a non-commercial or fair use pursuant to 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 demonstrates Respondent’s lack of rights and lack of interests in respect of the at-issue domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Respondent’s <crunchbasetrade.co> 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.
First, Respondent uses its confusingly similar domain name to pass itself off as Complainant and misdirect internet users seeking Complainant to Respondent’s <crunchbasetrade.co> website. There Respondent further exploits the goodwill found in Complainant’s trademark by purporting to offer products that compete with Complainant’s own products. Using the domain name to feign an affiliation between Complainant and Respondent when there is none so that Respondent may commercially benefit is disruptive to Complainant’s business and demonstrates Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the at-issue domain name under both Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See ZIH Corp. v. ou yang lin q, FA1761403 (Forum Dec. 29, 2017) (Finding bad faith where Respondent used the infringing domain name to disrupt Complainant’s business by diverting Internet users from Complainant’s website to Respondent’s website where it offered competing printer products).
Moreover, Respondent registered <crunchbasetrade.co> knowing that Complainant had trademark rights in the CRUNCHBASE mark. Respondent’s prior knowledge is evident from the notoriety of Complainant’s trademark and from Respondent’s use of the domain name as discussed elsewhere herein. Respondent’s prior knowledge of Complainant's trademark further indicates that Respondent registered and used the <crunchbasetrade.co> 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 ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <crunchbasetrade.co> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist
Dated: August 15, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page