Course Hero, Inc. v. Domain Administrator / Fundacion Privacy Services LTD
Claim Number: FA2209002012669
Complainant is Course Hero, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Monique Ho of Course Hero, Inc., California, USA. Respondent is Domain Administrator / Fundacion Privacy Services LTD (“Respondent”), Panama.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <quilbot.com> (the “disputed domain name”), registered with Media Elite Holdings Limited (the “Registrar”).
The undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Lynda M. Braun as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on September 19, 2022; Forum received payment on September 19, 2022.
On September 26, 2022, the Registrar confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <quilbot.com> disputed domain name is registered with Media Elite Holdings Limited and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Media Elite Holdings Limited has verified that Respondent is bound by the Media Elite Holdings Limited 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 30, 2022, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of October 20, 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@quilbot.com. Also on September 30, 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 28, 2022, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Lynda M. Braun 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 disputed domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant has provided an online artificial intelligence (“AI”)-based language generation product since 2017. The product consists of an AI-powered paraphrasing tool to enhance one’s writing and to correct spelling and grammar.
Complainant asserts rights in the QUILLBOT trademark based upon registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., United States Registration No. 6,269,158, registered on February 16, 2021), as well as registration with other trademark agencies worldwide (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “QUILLBOT Mark”).
Complainant claims that Respondent’s <quilbot.com> disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s QUILLBOT Mark because it incorporates a misspelling of the QUILLBOT Mark, merely removing the second “l” from “quill”, followed by the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com”.
Complainant also contends that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Complainant has not licensed, authorized or otherwise permitted Respondent to use Complainant’s QUILLBOT Mark. Additionally, Complainant contends that Respondent uses the disputed domain name to redirect Internet users to a site that instructs them to download a “Chrome” extension.
Finally, Complainant alleges that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the QUILLBOT Mark and Respondent engaged in the practice of typosquatting when registering a misspelling of the disputed domain name.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
The Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the QUILLBOT Mark based on its trademark registrations with the USPTO in the United States and other jurisdictions worldwide. Registration with trademark offices worldwide is sufficient to establish rights in a mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). In addition, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s QUILLBOT Mark, that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
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 disputed domain name should be cancelled or transferred:
(1) the disputed 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 disputed domain name; and
(3) the disputed 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 Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the QUILLBOT Mark as set forth below.
Here, the disputed domain name consists of a misspelling[i] of the QUILLBOT Mark, deleting one letter – the second letter “l” in “quill” in the QUILLBOT Mark, and then followed by the gTLD “.com“. Registration of a misspelled disputed domain name does not distinguish the disputed domain name from the mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). There is no doubt that Respondent chose the disputed domain name precisely because it is easily confused with Complainant’s QUILLBOT Mark. Therefore, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the QUILLBOT Mark.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been established by Complainant.
The Panel finds that Respondent holds no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Under the Policy, Complainant is required to make out a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Once such a prima facie case is made, Respondent carries the burden of demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. See Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) (“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”).
As Respondent did not respond to the Complaint, Respondent cannot have carried its burden to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Panel notes that, given the facts here, Respondent would have been hard-pressed to furnish availing arguments, had it chosen to respond:
In support, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name or any name similar to it, nor has Complainant authorized or licensed Respondent to use its QUILLBOT Mark in the disputed domain name. In addition, Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services, nor any legitimate noncommercial or fair use because Respondent uses the disputed domain name to divert Internet users who seek Complainant’s website to Respondent’s resolving website. Use of a domain name to divert users for a respondent’s own benefit may be evidence of a domain name not being used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services nor for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii). See Bank of Am. Corp. v. Nw. Free Cmty. Access, FA 180704 (Forum Sept. 30, 2003) (“Respondent's demonstrated intent to divert Internet users seeking Complainant's website to a website of Respondent and for Respondent's benefit is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and it is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy 4(c)(iii).”).
In addition, the Panel concludes that Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Respondent uses the disputed domain name to redirect visitors to a site that instructs them to download “a Chrome extension that intelligently warns you of adult search queries and removes adult autocomplete suggestions from [their] address bar” before they can visit . The visitor must click “Accept,” as no other choices are available. Doing so results in an error message that prompts the user to click a button to “Download Chrome.” The visitor is eventually redirected to a place which advertises the same Chrome extension. As the user is directed to download a Chrome extension, doing so demonstrates that Respondent is purportedly using the disputed domain name to facilitate a phishing scheme. Phishing is not deemed a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Enterprise Holdings, Inc. v. I S / Internet Consulting Services Inc., FA 1785242 (Forum June 5, 2018) (“On its face, the use of a domain name that is confusingly similar to the mark of another in order to facilitate a phishing scheme cannot be described as either 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).”
Finally, Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith as Respondent engaged in typosquatting. See Cost Plus Management Services, Inc. v. xushuaiwei, FA 1800036 (Forum Sep. 7, 2018) (“Typosquatting itself is evidence of relevant bad faith registration and use.”). Here, Respondent engaged in typosquatting by deleting a letter from the disputed domain name to create a domain name that is easily confused with Complainant’s QUILLBOT Mark. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Accordingly, the Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been established by Complainant.
The Panel finds that, based on the record, the Complainant has demonstrated the existence of Respondent’s bad faith registration and use pursuant to paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy as described below.
First, the use of a disputed domain name to intentionally attempt to attract Internet users to a respondent’s website or online location by creating a likelihood of confusion or a false association with a complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the registrant’s website or online location demonstrates registration and use in bad faith. See AOL LLC v. iTech Ent, LLC, FA 726227 (Forum July 21, 2006).
Second, where a disputed domain name is so obviously connected with a well-known name, product or service, its use by someone with no connection to the name, product or service indicates bad faith. Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the QUILLBOT Mark, and this constitutes bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). It therefore strains credulity to believe that Respondent had not known of the Complainant or its QUILLBOT Mark when registering the disputed domain name. Thus, as here, prior knowledge of a complainant’s trademarks before registering a domain name is sufficient to find bad faith under Policy ¶4(a)(iii). See Orbitz Worldwide, LLC v. Domain Librarian, FA 1535826 (Forum Feb. 6, 2014) (finding actual knowledge due to the domain name chosen and the use made of it).
Finally, as described above, Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith as Respondent engaged in typosquatting. Here, Respondent engaged in typosquatting by deleting the second letter “l” from the disputed domain name to create a domain name that is easily confused with Complainant’s QUILLBOT Mark. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent engaged in typosquatting, and thus, is using the disputed domain name in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Accordingly, the Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been established by Complainant.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <quilbot.com> disputed domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Lynda M. Braun, Panelist
Dated: November 10, 2022
[i] This misspelling is an example of typosquatting, a situation in which a disputed domain name includes a misspelled term.
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page