DECISION

 

Hertza L.L.C. v. walid amri / coinserom

Claim Number: FA2501002135503

PARTIES

Complainant is Hertza L.L.C. ("Complainant"), represented by Sarah R. Frankfort of De Diego Law LLC, Texas, USA. Respondent is walid amri / coinserom ("Respondent"), Tunisia.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <zerobounces.email>, registered with NameCheap, Inc.

 

PANEL

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.

 

Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on January 16, 2025; Forum received payment on January 16, 2025.

 

On January 16, 2025, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <zerobounces.email> domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. 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 20, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 10, 2025 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@zerobounces.email. Also on January 20, 2025, 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 February 11, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. 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 name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

i) Complainant has used the ZEROBOUNCE mark in commerce in connection with its email validation services since at least as early as January 2017. Complainant has rights in the ZEROBOUNCE mark through its registration with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 5,654,128, registered on January 15, 2019). The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's ZEROBOUNCE mark, as it incorporates the mark in its entirety while merely adding the pluralizing "s" and the ".email" gTLD, which are insufficient to distinguish the disputed domain name from Complainant's mark.

 

ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, particularly given its extremely brief usage of less than one month. Respondent's mere addition of the letter "s" to the end of the ZEROBOUNCE mark in registering the disputed domain name further supports a finding of its lack of rights or legitimate interests. Given the private nature of the registration, there is no evidence in the record to suggest that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name.

 

iii) The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Respondent seeks to attract Internet users for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the ZEROBOUNCE mark for competing email validation services. Passing off as a complainant while offering competing products constitutes evidence of bad faith. Complainant sent a cease-and-desist letter, but Respondent failed to respond. Respondent's website now accepts cryptocurrencies, and its continued unauthorized use of the ZEROBOUNCE mark further indicates bad faith. Additionally, Respondent's use of a proxy/privacy service to conceal its identity supports a finding of bad faith registration and use.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent did not submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

1. Respondent registered the disputed domain name on December 29, 2024.

 

2. Complainant has established rights in the ZEROBOUNCE mark through its registration with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 5,654,128, registered on January 15, 2019).

 

3. Respondent is using the disputed domain name to impersonate Complainant while offering competing email validation services.

 

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

Complainant asserts rights in the ZEROBOUNCE mark through its registration with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 5,654,128, registered on January 15, 2019). Registration of a mark with the USPTO is generally recognized as valid evidence of trademark rights under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). As Complainant has provided proof of its trademark registration with the USPTO, the Panel concludes that Complainant has established rights in the ZEROBOUNCE mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Complainant contends that the disputed domain name, <zerobounces.email>, is confusingly similar to its ZEROBOUNCE mark because it incorporates the mark in its entirety while merely adding the pluralizing "s" and the ".email" gTLD, which are insufficient to distinguish the disputed domain name from Complainant's mark. The Panel agrees and finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the ZEROBOUNCE mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Section 2.1, WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 ("Where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element.").

 

Complainant argues that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, as Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, particularly given its extremely brief usage of less than one month. Respondent's mere addition of the letter "s" to the end of the ZEROBOUNCE mark in registering the disputed domain name further supports a finding of its lack of rights or legitimate interests. Given the private nature of the registration, there is no evidence in the record to suggest that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name.

 

Relevant information, such as WHOIS records, may serve as evidence to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by a disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). The Panel notes that the unmasked WHOIS information lists "walid amri / coinserom" as the registrant, and there is no evidence in the record indicating that Respondent was authorized to use the mark. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

Although Complainant has not explicitly demonstrated that Respondent is not using the disputed domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services or for any legitimate noncommercial or fair use, the Panel notes Complainant's argument that Respondent's impersonation of Complainant while offering competing email validation services serves as evidence of bad faith. Complainant has submitted screenshots showing that the disputed domain name resolves to a website offering email validation services, with headings and subheadings such as "Bulk Email Validator," "How It Works," "Plans & Pricing," and "Your trusted partner for email validations." The website associated with the disputed domain name also configures email addresses under the disputed domain name for its contact method.

 

Under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii), using a disputed domain name to offer competing and related goods is generally not considered a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See Netflix, Inc. v. Irpan Panjul / 3corp.inc, FA 1741976 (Forum Aug. 22, 2017) ("The usage of Complainant's NETFLIX mark which has a significant reputation in relation to audio-visual services for unauthorized audio-visual material is not fair as the site does not make it clear that there is no commercial connection with Complainant and this amounts to passing off . . . As such the panelist finds that Respondent does not have rights or a legitimate interest in the Domain Name."); see also DaVita Inc. v. Cynthia Rochelo, FA 1738034 (Forum July 20, 2017) ("Passing off in furtherance of a phishing scheme is not considered a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use."). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services, nor any legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii).

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case based on the considerations above. All of these factors contribute to establishing a prima facie case against Respondent. As Respondent has neither filed a Response nor otherwise attempted to rebut the prima facie case against it, the Panel concludes that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Complainant asserts that by using the disputed domain name, Respondent has attempted to attract Internet users to its website for personal gain or other illegitimate purposes. The website associated with the disputed domain name offers the same email validation services as those provided by Complainant.

 

Under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv), using a disputed domain name to pass off as Complainant and offer similar or competing services may constitute evidence of bad faith attraction for commercial gain. See Ripple Labs Inc. v. Jessie McKoy / Ripple Reserve Fund, FA 1790949 (Forum July 9, 2018) ("finding bad faith under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv) where the respondent used the disputed domain name to resolve to a website that passed off as the complainant and offered online cryptocurrency services in direct competition with the complainant's business.").

 

The Panel notes the screenshots of the website to which the disputed domain name resolves, which purports to offer email validation services in direct competition with Complainant's business. The Panel finds that Respondent's activities disrupt Complainant's business by diverting Internet users seeking Complainant to Respondent's website, thereby obtaining commercial benefits. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith under 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 <zerobounces.email> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq., Panelist

Dated: February 11, 2025