Udemy, Inc. v. James H Park / JIN-1
Claim Number: FA2302002031142
Complainant is Udemy, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Jessica Tam of Udemy, Inc., California, USA. Respondent is James H Park / JIN-1 (“Respondent”), Korea.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <udemycoupons.com>, registered with DropCatch.com 504 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 February 8, 2023; Forum received payment on February 9, 2023.
On February 9, 2023, DropCatch.com 504 LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <udemycoupons.com> domain name is registered with DropCatch.com 504 LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. DropCatch.com 504 LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the DropCatch.com 504 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 February 9, 2023, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 1, 2023 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@udemycoupons.com. Also on February 9, 2023, 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 March 7, 2023, 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, founded in 2010, it is the world’s largest online learning destination helping learners gain the skills they need to compete in today’s economy. Over 57 million learners around the world have learned new skills through taking online courses on Complainant’s platform which offers over 213,000 courses, has courses available in more than 75 languages, and has 74,000+ instructors. The platform has enabled its global cohort of instructors to offer their expertise to individuals and organizations around the globe, enabling them to earn over $177 million in 2021, which in turn helps instructors support themselves, their families, and their communities. For companies, Complainant offers an employee training and development platform with subscription access to 19,000+ courses. Currently, 51% of the Fortune 100 use Complainant’s services to help their employees learn new skills. Complainant is currently headquartered in San Francisco, California, and has offices in Ankara, Türkiye; Austin, Texas; Boston, Massachusetts; Mountain View, California; Denver, Colorado; Dublin, Ireland; Melbourne, Australia; New Delhi, India; and Sao Paulo, Brazil. Complainant asserts rights in the UDEMY mark based upon its registration in the United States in 2013.
Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its UDEMY mark because it incorporates the mark in its entirety, merely adding the generic/descriptive term “coupons” and the generic top level domain (gTLD) “.com”. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
According to Complainant, Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services or for a legitimate or fair use. Instead, the resolving website displays per-per-click hyperlinks not related to Complainant. Respondent is offering the disputed domain name for sale for a price in excess of out of pocket costs. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. The resolving website displays pay-per-click hyperlinks. Respondent is offering the disputed domain name for sale at a price in excess of out-of-pocket costs. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant owns the mark UDEMY and uses it to provide educational services.
Complainant’s rights in its mark date back to at least 2013.
The disputed domain name was registered in 2016.
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its marks.
Respondent is using the disputed domain name to resolve to a website containing advertising links for products and services not related to Complainant. Respondent offers the disputed domain name for sale for a price in excess of out-of-pocket costs.
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 Complainant’s UDEMY mark in its entirety, merely adding the generic/descriptive term “coupons” and the generic top level domain (gTLD) “.com”. The addition of a generic term as well as a gTLD may not defeat an argument of confusing similarity 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.”). Thus the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Complainant to use its mark. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name: under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), WHOIS information can substantiate a finding that a respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. See Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Suzen Khan / Nancy Jain / Andrew Stanzy, FA 1741129 (Forum Aug. 16, 2017) (finding that respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names when the identifying information provided by WHOIS was unrelated to the domain names or respondent’s use of the same). Here, the WHOIS information of record names “James H. Park” as the registrant of the disputed domain name. The Panel therefore finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
The resolving website displays pay-per-click advertising hyperlinks for products and services not related to those of Complainant. The operation of pay-per-click website is not a bona fide offering of goods and services or a legitimate or fair use per Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii). See Insomniac Holdings, LLC v. Mark Daniels, FA 1735969 (Forum July 15, 2017) (”Respondent’s use of <edcorlando.xyz> also does not qualify as a bona fide offering… the <edcorlando.xyz> domain name resolves to a site containing pay-per-click hyperlinks and advertisements… Since these kinds of advertisements generate revenue for the holder of a domain name, they cannot be noncommercial; further, they do not qualify as a bona fide offering.”); see also Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Syed Hussain / IBN7 Media Group, FA 1721384 (Forum Apr. 26, 2017) (holding that the respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to redirect Internet users to commercial websites, unrelated to the complainant and presumably with the purpose of earning a commission or pay-per-click referral fee did not evidence rights or legitimate interests in the domain name). Thus the Panel finds that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods and services or a legitimate or fair use per Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).
The resolving website offers the disputed domain name for sale for a price in excess of out-of-pocket costs. A general offer for sale of a domain name does not represent a bona fide offering of goods and services or a legitimate or fair use per Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See Enterprise Holdings, Inc. v. Huang Jia Lin, FA1504001614086 (Forum May 25, 2015) (“Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent’s general attempt to sell the disputed domain name is further evidence of Respondent’s lack of rights and legitimate interests under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).”).
For all the above reasons, 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, as already noted, Respondent is using the disputed domain name to resolve to a page containing unrelated pay-per-click links. The use of pay-per-click links is evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Dovetail Ventures, LLC v. Klayton Thorpe, FA1506001625786 (Forum Aug. 2, 2015) (holding that the respondent had acted in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv), where it used the disputed domain name to host a variety of hyperlinks, unrelated to the complainant’s business, through which the respondent presumably commercially gained); see also Tumblr, Inc. v. Ailing Liu, FA1402001543807 (Forum March 24, 2014) (“Bad faith use and registration exists under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where a respondent uses a confusingly similar domain name to resolve to a website featuring links and advertisements unrelated to complainant’s business and respondent is likely collecting fees.”). The Panel therefore finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
Further, Respondent is offering to sell the disputed domain name for a price in excess of out-of-pocket costs. Offering a domain name for sale is evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(i). See Airbnb, Inc. v. Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot, FA 1821386 (Forum Jan. 10, 2019) (“Complainant argues that Respondent registered and uses the <airbnbb.com> domain name in bad faith by offering it for sale. The Panel agrees and finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(i).”). Therefore the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(i).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <udemycoupons.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Richard Hill, Panelist
Dated: March 7, 2023
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page