Yahoo Assets LLC v. Patrick Simmons
Claim Number: FA2211002022135
Complainant is Yahoo Assets LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Joseph Daniels-Salamanca of Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, California, USA. Respondent is Patrick Simmons (“Respondent”), Michigan.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <cryptotechcrunch.com> (“Domain Name”), registered with FastDomain 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.
Nicholas J.T. Smith as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on November 29, 2022; Forum received payment on November 29, 2022.
On November 30, 2022, FastDomain Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <cryptotechcrunch.com> domain name is registered with FastDomain Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. FastDomain Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the FastDomain 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 December 5, 2022, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of December 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@cryptotechcrunch.com. Also on December 5, 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 formal response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On December 29, 2022, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Nicholas J.T. Smith 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 formal response from Respondent.
Complainant requests that the Domain Name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant provides internet and online content services. Complainant’s TECHCRUNCH mark has been used since 2005 in connection with a wide variety of goods and services, including an annual technology conference and the operation of an online publication dedicated to technology news, opinions, and analysis. Complainant asserts rights in the TECHCRUNCH mark based upon registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g. Reg. No. 4,295,864, registered February 26, 2013). The <cryptotechcrunch.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s TECHCRUNCH mark because the Domain Name includes the Complainant’s mark in its entirety with the addition of the generic term “crypto” and the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com”.
Complainant asserts Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. Respondent is not commonly known by the <cryptotechcrunch.com> domain name. Respondent is not using the Domain Name in connection with any bona fide offering of goods and services or for any legitimate or fair use. Instead, Respondent diverts Internet users to its own infringing website where it offers a competing online news publication covering technology.
Respondent registered and uses the <cryptotechcrunch.com> domain name in bad faith. Respondent registered the Domain Name in order to disrupt Complainant’s business and divert customers for commercial gain. Respondent registered the Domain Name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the TECHCRUNCH mark, given the use of the Domain Name to offer a competing technology news service.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a formal Response in this proceeding. On December 6, 2022 Respondent sent two informal e-mails to Forum. The relevant content of the two e-mails is set out below:
“Sounds like a scam to me. I purchased this domain for my blog. So please stop whoever is trying to steel it.
Otherwise I will just make this public on social media outlets that im being targeted for purchasing a domain name before someone else.
Whoever is complaining does not have the right to take this domain from me.”
and
“I have a Crypto focused website. I have no idea about any other website.
Just becuse my name has other keywords in it doesn't mean a company owns those keywords. Please drop this case.
Sounds like someone just being a cyber bully as a company”
Complainant holds trademark rights for the TECHCRUNCH mark. The Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s TECHCRUNCH mark. Complainant has established that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the use of the Domain Name and that Respondent registered and has used the 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 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 formal 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”).
Complainant has rights in the TECHCRUNCH mark through its registration of the mark with the USPTO (e.g. Reg. No. 4,295,864, registered February 26, 2013). Registration of a mark with the USPTO is sufficient to demonstrate rights in the mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See DIRECTV, LLC v. The Pearline Group, FA 1818749 (Forum Dec. 30, 2018) (“Complainant’s ownership of a USPTO registration for DIRECTV demonstrate its rights in such mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”).
The Panel finds that the <cryptotechcrunch.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s TECHCRUNCH mark because it wholly incorporates Complainant’s TECHCRUNCH mark and adds the generic term “crypto” and the generic top-level domain (gTLD) “.com.” Adding a generic term and a gTLD to a mark fails to sufficiently distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See MTD Products Inc v J Randall Shank, FA 1783050 (Forum June 27, 2018) (“The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark as it wholly incorporates the CUB CADET mark before appending the generic terms ‘genuine’ and ‘parts’ as well as the ‘.com’ gTLD.”).
The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant alleges that Respondent holds no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. In order for Complainant to succeed under this element, it must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the Domain Name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006) and AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Forum Sept. 25, 2006) (“Complainant must first make a prima facie showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names, which burden is light. If Complainant satisfies its burden, then the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain names.”). The Panel holds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case.
Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name as Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name, nor has Complainant authorized Respondent to use the TECHCRUNCH mark. Respondent has no relationship, affiliation, connection, endorsement or association with Complainant. WHOIS information can help support a finding that a respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, especially where a privacy service has been engaged. 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)); see also Kohler Co. v. Privacy Service, FA1505001621573 (Forum July 2, 2015) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) where “Privacy Service” was listed as the registrant of the disputed domain name). The WHOIS lists “Patrick Simmons” as registrant of record. Coupled with Complainant’s unrebutted assertions as to absence of any affiliation or authorization between the parties, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name in accordance with Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
The Domain Name resolves a website (“Respondent’s Website”) that offers a technology information and news service in direct competition with Complainant’s well-established technology information and news service. The use of a confusingly similar domain name to resolve to a webpage that offers goods or services that compete with a complainant does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use; indeed it provides a false impression that the Respondent is affiliated with or authorized by Complainant. See Upwork Global Inc. v. Shoaib Malik, FA 1654759 (Forum February 3, 2016) (finding that Complainant provides freelance talent services, and that Respondent competes with Complainant by promoting freelance talent services through the disputed domain’s resolving webpage, which is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor is it a legitimate noncommercial or fair use). See also 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).”).
The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
The Panel finds that, at the time of registration of the Domain Name, September 22, 2022, Respondent, on the balance of probabilities, had actual knowledge of Complainant’s TECHCRUNCH mark since the Respondent’s Website offers services in direct competition with Complainant, who had used the TECHCRUNCH mark for over 15 years for identical services and had developed a considerable reputation in the mark. There is no obvious explanation, nor has one been provided, for an entity to register a domain name that wholly incorporates the coined TECHCRUNCH mark and use it to redirect visitors to a website offering technology news services other than to take advantage of Complainant’s reputation in the TECHCRUNCH mark. In the absence of rights or legitimate interests of its own this demonstrates registration in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
The Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the Domain Name in bad faith to create confusion with Complainant’s TECHCRUNCH mark for commercial gain by using the confusingly similar Domain Name to resolve to a website offering competing services. Using a confusingly similar domain name to divert Internet users to a respondent’s competing website can show bad faith registration and use per 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 the respondent used the infringing domain name to disrupt the complainant’s business by diverting Internet users from the complainant’s website to the respondent’s website where it offered competing printer products). See also Xylem Inc. and Xylem IP Holdings LLC v. YinSi BaoHu YiKaiQi, FA1504001612750 (Forum May 13, 2015) (“The Panel agrees that Respondent’s use of the website to display products similar to Complainant’s, imputes intent to attract Internet users for commercial gain, and finds bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).”). See also Citadel LLC and its related entity, KCG IP Holdings, LLC v. Joel Lespinasse / Radius Group, FA1409001579141 (Forum Oct. 15, 2014) (“Here, the Panel finds evidence of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) bad faith as Respondent has used the confusingly similar domain name to promote its own financial management and consulting services in competition with Complainant.”). Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the Domain Name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv)
The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied 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 <cryptotechcrunch.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Nicholas J.T. Smith, Panelist
Dated: December 30, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page