Quora, Inc. v. Bokwoo Lee
Claim Number: FA2209002010828
Complainant is Quora, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Kelley Harrington of Cooley LLP, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is Bokwoo Lee (“Respondent”), Arab Emirates.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <coincuora.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 Forum electronically on September 2, 2022; Forum received payment on September 2, 2022.
On September 6, 2022, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <coincuora.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 September 7, 2022, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 27, 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@coincuora.com. Also on September 7, 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, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On October 4, 2022, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Richard Hill as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that 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, 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 is a multi-national corporation based in Mountain View, California, United States of America. Complainant provides the question-and-answer, on-line, collaborative, information sharing and learning, internet and mobile platform, located at <quora.com> where questions are asked, answered, followed, and edited by internet users, either factually or in the form of opinions or personal experiences, on virtually any topic – notably including blockchain technology and cryptocurrency. Complainant was founded in June 2009. Since at least as early as 2010, Complainant has used the distinctive and coined term QUORA which has no established meaning, to represent its platform and services related thereto. Since at least as early as 2014, Complainant has provided webpages with information on the topics of blockchain and cryptocurrency. When one searches “Quora” and “blockchain” or “Quora” and “cryptocurrency”, the first results are links to various pages of <quora.com>. Social commentators have also reported that Complainant’s platform is a reputable place to “gain and share knowledge and learn and understand the blockchain space,” and on the value advertising crypto projects on Complainant’s platform can bring in light of Complainant’s “own community of cryptocurrencies and NFT, in which the opinion of the participants has a high degree of importance and trust.” Complainant asserts rights in the QUORA mark based upon is registration in the United States in 2013. The mark is registered elsewhere around the world.
Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its QUORA trademark because it incorporates a phonetically identical and visually similar version of the mark, replacing the letter “Q” with “C”, and merely adds the descriptive term “coin” and generic top-level domain name (“gTLD”) “.com”. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
According to Complainant, Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant’s QUORA mark and is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, Respondent uses the disputed domain name to offer services that compete with those of Complainant. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith by using it to offer competing services. Respondent had actual notice of Complainant’s rights in the QUORA mark. Respondent engages in typosquatting. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
Finally, Complainant alleges that Respondent in the instant case is associated with or related to the respondent in the case Quora, Inc. v. Jon Ban, FA2205001997021 (Forum July 22, 2022), in which the Panel ordered the transfer of <coinquora.com>. Directly following the order and before transfer of <coinquora.com> to Complainant, Respondent set a redirect from <coinquora.com> to <coincuora.com> and then quickly transitioned its previous website to the resolving website in the instant case, which continues to display the name COINQUORA.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant owns the mark QUORA and uses it to provide an online question and answer platform, including regarding blockchain and cybercurrencies.
Complainant’s rights in its mark date back to at least 2013.
The disputed domain name was registered in 2022.
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark.
Respondent uses the disputed domain to provide services that compete with those of Complainant. Respondent in the instant case is associated with or related to the respondent in the case Quora, Inc. v. Jon Ban, FA2205001997021 (Forum July 22, 2022), in which the Panel ordered the transfer of <coinquora.com>.
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 a phonetically identical and visually similar version of Complainant’s QUORA mark by replacing the letter “Q” with “C” and merely adds the descriptive term “coin” and the gTLD “.com”. Such changes are not sufficient to distinguish a domain name from a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Lucasfilm Entertainment Company Ltd. LLC and Lucasfilm Ltd. LLC v. George Ring / DN Capital Inc., FA 1673825 (Forum June 7, 2016) (finding that “Respondent’s <lukasfilm.com> domain name incorporates the LUCASFILM mark and merely substitutes a phonetically identical ‘k’ for the ‘c,’” and is therefore confusingly similar); see also Coachella Music Festival, LLC v. Domain Administrator / China Capital Investment Limited, FA 1734230 (Forum July 17, 2017) (“The addition of letters—particularly of those that create a common misspelling—fails to sufficiently distinguish a domain name from a registered mark.”); see also The Toronto-Dominion Bank v. George Whitehead, FA 1784412 (Forum June 11, 2018) (“[S]light differences between domain names and registered marks, such as the addition of words that describe the goods or services in connection with the mark and gTLDs, do not distinguish the domain name from the mark incorporated therein per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”). Therefore the Panel finds that the <coincuora.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s QUORA mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Respondent is not licensed or otherwise authorized to use Complainant’s QUORA mark and is not commonly known by the disputed domain name: under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), WHOIS information may be used to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. See State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Dale Anderson, FA1504001613011 (Forum May 21, 2015) (concluding that because the WHOIS record lists “Dale Anderson” as the registrant of the disputed domain name, the respondent was not commonly known by the <statefarmforum.com> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)). Here, the WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the registrant as “Bokwoo Lee”. Therefore the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
Respondent uses the disputed domain name to provide services that compete with those of Complainant. 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). See Quora, Inc. v. Jon Ban, FA2205001997021 (Forum July 22, 2022), in which the Panel ordered the transfer of <coinquora.com> which displayed content identical to that of the resolving website in the instant case; see also Vanguard Trademark Holdings USA LLC v. Dan Stanley Saturne, FA 1785085 (Forum June 8, 2018) (“Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name does not amount to a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use” where “Respondent is apparently using the disputed domain name to offer for sale competing services.”). Thus, the Panel finds that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name to make 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). And the Panel finds that Respondent does not have 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, Complainant provides evidence showing that Respondent in the instant case is associated with or related to the respondent in the case Quora, Inc. v. Jon Ban, FA2205001997021 (Forum July 22, 2022), in which the Panel ordered the transfer of <coinquora.com>. Specifically, Complainant provides evidence showing that, directly following the order and before transfer of <coinquora.com> to Complainant, Respondent set a redirect from <coinquora.com> to <coincuora.com> and then quickly transitioned its previous website to the resolving website in the instant case, which continues to display the name COINQUORA.
Further, as already noted, the resolving website offers services that compete with those of Complainant. Past panels have found bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) where a respondent appropriates a complainant’s mark to divert the complainant’s customers to the respondent’s competing business. See Quora, Inc. v. Jon Ban, FA2205001997021 (Forum July 22, 2022), in which the Panel ordered the transfer of <coinquora.com> which displayed content identical to that of the resolving website in the instant case; see also Classic Metal Roofs, LLC v. Interlock Indus., Ltd., FA 724554 (Forum Aug. 1, 2006) (finding that the respondent registered and used the <classicmetalroofing.com> domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) by redirecting Internet users to the respondent’s competing website); see also Univ. of Texas Sys. v. Smith, FA 1195696 (Forum July 7, 2008) (finding that using the resolving website to divert Internet users to the complainant’s competitors constituted bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)); see also DatingDirect.com Ltd. v. Aston, FA 593977 (Forum Dec. 28, 2005) (“Respondent is appropriating Complainant’s mark to divert Complainant’s customers to Respondent’s competing business. The Panel finds this diversion is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).”). Thus the Panel finds bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).
Further, Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s mark: as already noted, Respondent in the instant case is associated with or related to the respondent in the case Quora, Inc. v. Jon Ban, FA2205001997021 (Forum July 22, 2022), in which the Panel ordered the transfer of <coinquora.com>. While constructive notice is insufficient to demonstrate bad faith, actual knowledge of a complainant’s rights in a mark prior to registration may be evidence of bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Custom Modular Direct LLC v. Custom Modular Homes Inc., FA 1140580 (Forum Apr. 8, 2008) (“There is no place for constructive notice under the Policy.”); see also Orbitz Worldwide, LLC v. Domain Librarian, FA 1535826 (Forum Feb. 6, 2014) (“The Panel notes that although the UDRP does not recognize ‘constructive notice’ as sufficient grounds for finding Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) bad faith, the Panel here finds actual knowledge through the name used for the domain and the use made of it.”); see also Univision Comm'cns Inc. v. Norte, FA 1000079 (Forum Aug. 16, 2007) (rejecting the respondent's contention that it did not register the disputed domain name in bad faith since the panel found that the respondent had knowledge of the complainant's rights in the UNIVISION mark when registering the disputed domain name). The Panel finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the mark prior to Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name and that this constitutes bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Finally, by merely replacing the letter “Q” in Complainant’s mark with a “C”, Respondent engaged in typosquatting. Typosquatting itself is evidence of relevant bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Homer TLC, Inc. v. Artem Ponomarev, FA1506001623825 (Forum July 20, 2015) (“Finally, under this head of the Policy, it is evident that the <homededpot.com> domain name is an instance of typosquatting, which is the deliberate misspelling of the mark of another in a domain name, done to take advantage of common typing errors made by Internet users in entering into a web browser the name of an enterprise with which they would like to do business online. Typosquatting is independent evidence of bad faith in the registration and use of a domain name.”). Therefore the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <coincuora.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Richard Hill, Panelist
Dated: October 4, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page