DECISION

 

Ziff Davis, LLC v. Zanybh Solutions

Claim Number: FA2401002081633

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Ziff Davis, LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Alyssa Flores of Ziff Davis, LLC, New York, USA. Respondent is Zanybh Solutions ("Respondent"), India.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES

The domain names at issue are <mashableworld.com> and <mashableonline.com>, registered with NameCheap, Inc.

 

PANEL

The undersigned certifies that they have acted independently and impartially and to the best of their knowledge have no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.

 

Richard Hill as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on January 30, 2024; Forum received payment on January 30, 2024.

 

On January 30, 2024, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <mashableworld.com> and <mashableonline.com> domain names are registered with NameCheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. NameCheap, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameCheap, 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 January 31, 2024, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 20, 2024 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@mashableworld.com, postmaster@mashableonline.com. Also on January 31, 2024, 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. Respondent did however send a communication to the Forum, see below.

 

On February 21, 2024, 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.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant states that, since 2005, its Mashable subsidiary is a global, multi-platform media and entertainment company. Mashable is part of Complainant's digital media division comprised of highly acclaimed websites that reach over 53 million tech, health, video game, and entertainment enthusiasts around the world. Powered by its own proprietary technology, Mashable is the go-to source for tech, digital culture and entertainment content for its dedicated and influential audience around the globe. Mashable has over 28 million social media followers and boasts over 7.5 million shares of its content per month. Complainant asserts rights in the MASHABLE mark through its registration in the United States in 2013. The mark is registered elsewhere around the world.

 

Complainant alleges that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to its MASHABLE mark because they contain the mark in its entirely, merely adding generic/descriptive terms and the ".com" generic top-level domain ("gTLD").

 

According to Complainant, Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant's mark and is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, the resolving websites feature content that is confusingly and/or deceptively similar to that on Complaint's website: in particular, they mimic Complainant's editorial content in an effort to appear to be a reliable source for technology and entertainment content. Complainant's customers who visit the resolving websites will inevitably come to the erroneous conclusion that they are affiliated with or otherwise connected with Complainant.

 

Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent attempts to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent's website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the web site.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a formal Response in this proceeding. Respondent's communication to the Forum does not contain any statements or other elements pertinent for the instant case.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant has rights in the mark MASHABLE dating back to 2013 and uses it to provide technology, digital culture, and entertainment content.

 

The disputed domain names were registered in 2021 and 2022.

 

Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark.

 

Respondent is using the disputed domain names to resolve to websites that offer services that compete with those of Complainant.

 

DISCUSSION

Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and 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").

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

The disputed domain names incorporate Complainant's MASHABLE mark in its entirety, merely adding generic/descriptive terms and the ".com" generic top-level domain ("gTLD"). Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), adding a gTLD and/or generic/descriptive terms is generally insufficient in differentiating a disputed domain name from the mark it incorporates. See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("Where a relevant trademark is recognisable within a disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element."); see also Vanguard Group Inc. v. Proven Fin. Solutions, FA 572937 (Forum Nov. 18, 2005) (holding that the addition of both the word "advisors" and the gTLD ".com" did not sufficiently alter the disputed domain name to negate a finding of confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)). Therefore the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant's mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Respondent is not licensed or otherwise authorized to use Complainant's MASHABLE mark and is not commonly known by the disputed domain name: under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), WHOIS information can be used to show 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 notes "Zanybh Solutions" as the registrant. Thus, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

The resolving websites offer services that compete with those of Complainant. Panels have held that using another's mark to resolve to a website that offers products or services in competition with a Complainant's business is not using the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See Coachella Music Festival, LLC v. josh greenly / All Access Tickets, FA 1629217 (Forum Aug. 10, 2015) (finding that the respondent had failed to provide a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name as required under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii), where the respondent was using the disputed domain name to host a web page that featured links to services that competed with those of the complainant); 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)"). Thus, the Panel finds that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). And the Panel finds that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

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, the resolving websites offer competing services. This constitutes bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Asbury Auto Group Inc v Tex. Int'l Prop Assocs, FA 958542 (Forum May 29, 2007) (finding that the respondent's use of the disputed domain name to compete with the complainant's business would likely lead to confusion amongst Internet users as to the sponsorship or affiliation of a competing business and was therefore evidence of bad faith and use); see also Xylem Inc. and Xylem IP Holdings LLC v. YinSi BaoHu YiKaiQi, FA 1612750 (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)."). Accordingly, the Panel finds bad faith registration and use per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).

 

DECISION

Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <mashableworld.com> and <mashableonline.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Richard Hill, Panelist

Dated: February 21, 2024