DECISION

 

Yahoo Inc. v. Sadia Yousaf

Claim Number: FA2502002138571

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Yahoo Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by James R. Davis, II of Perkins Coie LLP, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is Sadia Yousaf ("Respondent"), Pakistan.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <engadget-tech.com>, registered with HOSTINGER operations, UAB.

 

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 February 4, 2025; Forum received payment on February 4, 2025.

 

On February 5, 2025, HOSTINGER operations, UAB confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <engadget-tech.com> domain name is registered with HOSTINGER operations, UAB and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. HOSTINGER operations, UAB has verified that Respondent is bound by the HOSTINGER operations, UAB 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 7, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 27, 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@engadget-tech.com. Also on February 7, 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 formal response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. However, Respondent did send emails to the Forum, see below.

 

On February 28, 2025, 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 formal response from Respondent.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

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

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant states that it is a well-known Internet and online content services company, and owner of the ENGADGET technology blog network, which was founded in 2004. The ENGADGET blogs provide daily coverage relating to consumer electronics and other technology products. Engadget reaches over 20 million readers per month, and its social media accounts have millions of followers, including 2.3 million on X (formerly, Twitter), 1.7 million on Facebook, 1.4 million on YouTube, and 371,000 on Instagram. Its website received over 6.5 million visits in December 2024 according to SimilarWeb. ENGADGET is the official online news source for CES, a trade show for consumer electronics held each year in Las Vegas. In 2020 [x]cube LABS ranked Engadget in its top 10 tech news websites to follow, in 2021 Engadget was ranked as one of the 15 expert-recommended resources for keeping up with the latest tech news by Forbes, and as of February 2025, Engadget ranks number 16 on the list of best tech websites and blogs by Grafdom. Complainant owns numerous domain names directing to its various Engadget websites, including engadget.pk (the country-code top-level domain for Pakistan, where Respondent is located) which directs to the primary ENGADGET services, domains and websites, and brand notoriety. Complainant asserts rights in the ENGADGET mark through its registration in the United States in 2007. The mark is registered elsewhere around the world.

 

Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its ENGADGET mark because it incorporates the mark in its entirety, merely adding a hyphen and the generic/descriptive term "tech", together with the ".com" generic top-level domain ("gTLD"). 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 and Complainant has not authorized or licensed to Respondent any rights in its mark. 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 disputed domain name is currently being used in connection with a commercial blog website that features technology and science articles that are highly similar to, and compete with, Complainant's Engadget technology blog websites. 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 offers services that compete with those of Complainant. In response to Complainant's demand letter, Respondent offered to sell the disputed domain name to Complainant, and threatened to sell it to a Chinese entity in the alternative. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a formal Response in this proceeding. In its first email to the Forum, Respondent states:

 

I have explained several times that I purchased the domain name "engadget-tech" from Hostinger, which was available at the time. I am unaware of the ownership of this name, and I did not intend to cause any issues. Now it has become my property. Your domain name is "engadget," while mine is "engadget-tech." As you can see, there is a clear distinction between the two. I have mentioned this repeatedly, but it seems you still do not understand.

 

If this is causing you significant discomfort, you are welcome to purchase the name. However, I request compensation for the time, effort, and costs I have already invested in this domain. I am a small-scale blogger, and you are a large network, so I do not understand why this issue is causing you so much trouble. If you continue to harass me, I will share your emails on social media and highlight how a large network has targeted a small blogger like myself.

 

In its second email to the Forum, Respondent presses its case, stating: "there are numerous other websites with similar names, such as engadget.xyz, available on the internet. If their claim were valid, it would imply that all such websites should be shut down, which is unreasonable and impractical. I am also perplexed that such a major network like Yahoo is focusing on a small blogger like myself and causing unnecessary disturbance." And: "I humbly request compensation for the emotional distress I have suffered due to their actions or I urge you to take steps to prevent networks like theirs from hindering the growth of educational and informational content on the internet."

 

FINDINGS

Complainant owns the mark ENGADGET and uses it to provide a technology blog network.

 

Complainant's rights in its mark date back to 2007.

 

The disputed domain name was registered in 2024.

 

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

 

The resolving website displays offers 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 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").

 

Preliminary issue: Respondent's procedural allegations

Respondent alleges that the Complaint is invalid because there are numerous other domain names that contain the mark ENGADET. However, that is irrelevant for the instant proceedings: Complainant is free not to file complainants against other domain names, and the registrants of other domain names may have rights or legitimate interests in those domain names.

 

Respondent appears to imply that the instant Complaint is not legitimate. However, such is not the case: the instant Complaint is submitted under the Policy, whose provisions are incorporated by reference in the registration agreement under which Respondent acquired the disputed domain name (specifically, paragraph 6 of Hostinger's Domain Name Registration Agreement).

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's ENGADGET mark in its entirety, merely adding a hyphen and the generic/descriptive term "tech", together with the ".com" generic top-level domain ("gTLD"). Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), adding a gTLD and/or a hyphen and/or generic terms and/or relevant or meaningless letters 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)); see also Home Depot Product Authority, LLC v. Angelo Kioussis, FA 1784554 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("The domain name contains the mark in its entirety, with only the addition of the generic letters 'sb' and the digits '2018,' plus the generic Top Level Domain ("gTLD") '.com.'  These alterations of the mark, made in forming the domain name, do not save it from the realm of confusing similarity under the standards of the Policy."); see also Mrs. World Pageants, Inc. v. Crown Promotions, FA 94321 (Forum Apr. 24, 2000) (finding that punctuation is not significant in determining the similarity of a domain name and mark). Therefore – contrary to what Respondent alleges – the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Respondent has not been licensed or authorized by Complainant to use its mark. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name: under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), relevant WHOIS information can be used as evidence to show a respondent is or is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. See Chevron Intellectual Property LLC v. Fred Wallace, FA 1626022 (Forum July 27, 2015) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <chevron-europe.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), as the WHOIS information named "Fred Wallace" as registrant of the disputed domain name). Here, the WHOIS information of record identifies the registrant of the disputed domain name as "Sadia Yousaf". Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

The resolving website offers services that compete with those of Complainant. Previous Panels have found that use of a disputed domain name to offer goods or services in competition with those of a complainant does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See Vanguard Trademark Holdings USA LLC v. Dan Stanley Saturne, FA 1785085 (Forum June 8, 2018) ("Respondent's use of the disputed domain name does not amount to a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use" where "Respondent is apparently using the disputed domain name to offer for sale competing services."). Thus the Panel finds that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use 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 website offers services that compete with those of Complainant. Panels have held that registration and use of a disputed domain name to divert Internet traffic to a competing website offering the same or similar goods or services demonstrates bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and/or (iv). See ZIH Corp. v. ou yang lin q, FA 1761403 (Forum Dec. 29, 2017) (Finding bad faith where Respondent used the infringing domain name to disrupt Complainant's business by diverting Internet users from Complainant's website to Respondent's website where it offered competing printer products); see also Citadel LLC and its related entity, KCG IP Holdings, LLC v. Joel Lespinasse / Radius Group, FA 1579141 (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."). Thus the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and/or 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 <engadget-tech.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Richard Hill, Panelist

Dated: February 28, 2025