DECISION

 

Salesforce Inc. v. zongxing lin

Claim Number: FA2502002139171

PARTIES

Complainant is Salesforce Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Ryan Miller of Pirkey Barber PLLC, Texas, USA. Respondent is zongxing lin ("Respondent"), China.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <salesforceagent.com>, registered with Sav.com, LLC.

 

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 7, 2025; Forum received payment on February 7, 2025.

 

On February 7, 2025, Sav.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <salesforceagent.com> domain name is registered with Sav.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Sav.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Sav.com, 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 11, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 3, 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@salesforceagent.com. Also on February 11, 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 March 4, 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 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 was founded in 1999 based on an innovative business model that focused on offering enterprise business applications by way of the internet rather than through traditional software packages. For more than 25 years, Complainant has used the mark SALESFORCE and related marks in connection with the provision of an array of computer software tools and applications. Salesforce is the world's leading customer relationship management ("CRM") platform and provides CRM and a variety of other cloud-based software-as-a-service products to over 150,000 companies worldwide. Complainant's most well-known offerings analyze, visualize, store, share, manage, integrate, and use data. Complainant's customers and partners use these offerings in virtually every field of business, entertainment, education, finance, construction, transportation, logistics, manufacturing, healthcare, technology, research, and government. Over 90% of the Fortune 500 companies are customers of Complainant. Indeed, Complainant's customers span numerous industries and have included multinational corporations and industry leaders, such as Cisco, Comcast, GE, Phillips, T-Mobile, The Hershey Company, Coca-Cola Enterprises, Virgin America, Wells Fargo, American Red Cross, Canon, Sysco, Plantronics, Pandora, Procter & Gamble, Nikon Instruments, Charles Schwab & Co., Facebook, Ford Motor Company, Yamaha Corporation of America, Delta Air Lines, Kimberly-Clark, Kiva, Herman Miller, Fisher & Paykel, R.M.Williams, Activision, Avon, Bausch + Lomb, Bel Group, Belkin, BMC Software, Brown-Forman, Burberry, Career Builder, Dunkin' Brands, Electronic Arts (EA), Financial Times (UK), GE Aviation, Kelly Services, Kimberly-Clark, KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, Air India, NBC Universal, News International, Kotak Mahindra Bank, Pernod Ricard, Spotify, Thomson Reuters, TOMS, and Toyota Motor Corporation. Complainants past and present partners also consist of internationally renowned industry leaders, including VMware, BMC Software, Facebook, Cisco, Accenture, Fujitsu, Hitachi, Deloitte, and Tata Consultancy Services, which provide products and services that complement those offered by Complainant. Complainant is consistently recognized as a leading innovator and, throughout the years, has garnered numerous awards from industry authorities such as Forbes, Fortune, Wired Magazine, and PC Magazine. Complainant asserts rights in the mark SALESFORCE through its registration in the United States in 2005.

 

Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its SALESFORCE mark as it incorporates the mark in its entirety and merely adds the generic/descriptive term "agent" together with the generic top-level domain ("gTLD") ".com."

 

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, nor has Complainant authorized, licensed, or otherwise permitted Respondent to use its mark. Respondent does not use the disputed domain name in connection with any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, the disputed domain resolves to a site that offers the domain for sale for $2,000. Respondent offered to sell the domain name to Complainant via an email to Complainant that referred to the resolving website, and via an email from Respondent's lawyer to Complainant's lawyers.

 

Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent offered to sell the disputed domain name to Complainant for a price in excess of out-of-pocket costs. Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when it registered the disputed domain name. Respondent engaged in a pattern of bad faith registration and use of domain names by registering other domain names incorporating well-known names and marks of third parties.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant owns rights in the mark SALESFORCE, with rights dating back to 2005 and uses it to provide enterprise business applications by way of the Internet.

 

The disputed domain name was registered in 2024.

 

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

 

Respondent offered to sell the disputed domain name to Complainant for an amount in excess of out of pocket costs.

 

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 name incorporates Complainant's SALESFORCE mark in its entirety, merely adding the generic/descriptive term "agent", together with the ".com" generic top-level domain ("gTLD"). Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), adding a gTLD and/or generic 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 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, FA1506001626022 (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 "zongxing lin". Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

Respondent has offered to sell the disputed domain name to Complainant for an amount in excess of out of pocket costs. Specifically, Respondent offered to sell the domain name to Complainant via an email to Complainant that referred to the resolving website, and via an email from Respondent's lawyer to Complainant's lawyers. This does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and it is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Hewlett-Packard Co. v. High Performance Networks, Inc., FA 95083 (Forum July 31, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where the respondent registered the domain name with the intention of selling its rights); see also Reese v. Morgan, FA 917029 (Forum Apr. 5, 2007) (finding that the respondent's willingness to sell a contested domain name for more than its out-of-pocket costs provided additional evidence that Respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in the contested domain name). Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Complainant alleges that Respondent engaged in a pattern of bad faith registration and use of domain names because it registered other domain names incorporating well-known names and marks of third parties. However, Complainant does not present any evidence showing that Respondent has been found to have registered and used domain names in bad faith in previous UDRP cases. Thus the Panel finds that Complainant has failed to satisfy its burden of proof for this allegation and will not further discuss it.

 

Respondent 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 noted above, Respondent offered to sell the disputed domain name to Complainant for an amount in excess of out of pocket costs. This is sufficient to establish bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(i). See Dollar Rent A Car Sys., Inc. v. Jongho, FA 95391 (Forum Sept. 11, 2000) (finding that the respondent demonstrated bad faith by registering the domain name with the intent to transfer it to the complainant for $3,000, an amount in excess of its out of pocket costs); see also George Weston Bakeries Inc. v. McBroom, FA 933276 (Forum Apr. 25, 2007) (concluding that the respondent registered and was using the <gwbakeries.mobi> domain name in bad faith according to Policy ¶ 4(b)(i) where it offered it for sale for far more than its estimated out-of-pocket costs it incurred in initially registering the disputed domain name). Thus the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(i).

 

Further, Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant's mark: Respondent sent an email to Complainant offering to sell the disputed domain name. While constructive notice is insufficient to demonstrate bad faith, actual knowledge of a complainant's rights in a mark prior to registration may be evidence of bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Custom Modular Direct LLC v. Custom Modular Homes Inc., FA 1140580 (Forum Apr. 8, 2008) ("There is no place for constructive notice under the Policy."); see also Orbitz Worldwide, LLC v. Domain Librarian, FA 1535826 (Forum Feb. 6, 2014) ("The Panel notes that although the UDRP does not recognize 'constructive notice' as sufficient grounds for finding Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) bad faith, the Panel here finds actual knowledge through the name used for the domain and the use made of it."); see also Univision Comm'cns Inc. v. Norte, FA 1000079 (Forum Aug. 16, 2007) (rejecting the respondent's contention that it did not register the disputed domain name in bad faith since the panel found that the respondent had knowledge of the complainant's rights in the UNIVISION mark when registering the disputed domain name). The Panel finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the mark prior to Respondent's registration of the disputed domain name and that this constitutes bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

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 <salesforceagent.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Richard Hill, Panelist

Dated: March 4, 2025