Yahoo Assets LLC v. Yunu Gaur
Claim Number: FA2209002013564
Complainant is Yahoo Assets LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Joseph Daniels-Salamanca of Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, California. Respondent is Yunu Gaur (“Respondent”), IN.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <techcrunchworld.com>, (‘the Domain Name’) registered with Launchpad.com Inc..
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.
Dawn Osborne as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on September 26, 2022; Forum received payment on September 26, 2022.
On September 27, 2022, Launchpad.com Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <techcrunchworld.com> Domain Name is registered with Launchpad.com Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Launchpad.com Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Launchpad.com 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 September 27, 2022, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of October 17, 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@techcrunchworld.com. Also on September 27, 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 20, 2021 pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Dawn Osborne 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
The Complainant is the owner of the mark TECHCRUNCH registered, inter alia, in the USA for technology news and conference services with first use recorded as 2005.
The Domain Name registered in 2022 is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark fully incorporating it and adding only the generic term ‘world’.
The Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, is not commonly known by it and is not authorized by the Complainant.
The Domain Name points to a web site that offers news services taking advantage of the Complainant’s mark. In the contact us section of the web site a message is optional suggesting the site is gathering customer information which could be used for phishing purposes. This is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a noncommercial legitimate or fair use.
The Respondent has intentionally taken advantage of the Complainant’s reputation to cause confusion and to suggest the Complainant is affiliated with the site attached to the Domain Name, and for possible phishing services.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
The Complainant is the owner of the mark TECHCRUNCH registered, inter alia, in the USA for technology news and conference services with first use recorded as 2005.
The Domain Name registered in 2022 has been used for competing news services and is gathering personal information from users.
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 Domain Name in this Complaint combines the Complainant’s TECHCRUNCH mark (registered, inter alia, in the USA for technology news and conference services with first use recorded as 2005), the generic term ‘world’ and the gTLD “.com”.
The addition of a generic term and a gTLD does not negate confusing similarity between a domain name and a trade mark contained within it. See Wiluna Holdings LLC v. Edna Sherman, FA 1652781 (Forum Jan 22, 2016) (Finding the addition of a generic term and gTLD insufficient to distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark under Policy 4 (a) (i).) Accordingly the addition of the generic terms ‘one’ and the gTLD .com does not prevent confusing similarity between the Complainant’s mark and the Domain Name.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a mark in which the Complainant has rights for the purpose of the Policy.
As such the Panel holds that Paragraph 4 (a) (i) of the Policy has been satisfied.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
<<The Complainant has not authorized the use of its mark. The Respondent has not answered this Complaint and there is no evidence or reason to suggest the Respondent is, in fact, commonly known by the Domain Name. See Alaska Air Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines v. Song Bin, FA1408001574905 (Forum September 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).
The Panel notes the allegation of phishing, although the purpose for which the information is gathered is not known.
Using a Domain Name for competing services not connected with the Complainant is commercial and so cannot be noncommercial legitimate fair use and is not a bona fide offering of goods or services. There is a risk of affiliation due to the nature of the Domain Name itself and the fact that the website uses the Complainant’s trade mark in the masthead of its site. (See Am. Intl Group Inc. v. Benjamin FA 944242 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 11, 2007) finding that the Respondent's use of a confusingly similar domain name to advertise real estate services which competed with the Complainant's business did not constitute a bona fide use of goods and services.)
As such the Panelist finds that the Respondent does not have rights or a legitimate interest in the Domain Name and that the Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
In the opinion of the panelist the use made of the Domain Name in relation to the site is confusing and disruptive in that visitors to the site might reasonably believe it is connected to or approved by the Complainant as it offers competing services under a Domain Name containing the Complainant’s mark and uses it in its masthead. The use of the Complainant's word mark in relation to technology news and information services suggests that it is more likely than not that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant and its rights, business and services at the time of registration of the Domain Name.
Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain Internet users to his website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trade mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the web site and services offered on it likely to disrupt the business of the Complainant. (See Asbury Auto Group Inc v. Tex. Int'l Prop Assocs FA 958542 (Nat. Arb Forum May 29, 2007) finding that the respondent's use of the disputed domain name to advertise car dealerships that competed with the complainant's business would likely lead to confusion amongst Internet users as to the sponsorship or affiliation of those competing dealerships and was therefore evidence of bad faith and use).
As such, there is no need to consider additional allegations of bad faith and the Panelist believes that the Complainant has made out its case that the Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith and has satisfied the third limb of the Policy under para 4(b)(iii) and (iv).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <techcrunchworld.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Dawn Osborne, Panelist
Dated: October 21, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page