DECISION

 

Indeed, Inc. v. Virginia Davis

Claim Number: FA2506002161883

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Indeed, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Jocelyn Hanamirian of Indeed, Inc., Texas, USA. Respondent is Virginia Davis ("Respondent"), Texas, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <getindeed.com>, registered with Squarespace Domains LLC.

 

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.

 

Debrett G. Lyons as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on June 20, 2025; Forum received payment on June 20, 2025.

 

On June 23, 2025, Squarespace Domains LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <getindeed.com> domain name is registered with Squarespace Domains LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Squarespace Domains LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Squarespace Domains 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 June 23, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 14, 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@getindeed.com. Also on June 23, 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.

 

On July 15, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Debrett G. Lyons 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 a formal response from Respondent.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

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

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant claims to provide the world's largest job site, with over 580 million job seeker profiles from over 60 countries. Complainant provides that service using the trademark, INDEED, which it has registered. Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark.

 

Complainant states that the disputed domain name was created long after Complainant had acquired rights in the trademark. Complainant alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name because it is not known by the same name and has not been authorized to use the trademark.

 

Complainant alleges that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith and for commercial gain having targeted Complainant and its trademark.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a formal Response in this proceeding but on June 23, 2025, wrote informally to Forum. That correspondence does not stand in place of a Response and the Panel is under no obligation to take it into account. The Panel has, however, read the correspondence and refers to it herein insofar as it is relevant to the Policy.

 

FINDINGS

The factual findings pertinent to the decision in this case are that:

1.       Complainant provides job search services by reference to the trademark, INDEED;

2.       Complaint is the owner of United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") Reg. No. 4,282,756, registered on January 29, 2013, for the word mark, Indeed;

3.       the disputed domain name was registered on May 1, 2024, using a privacy service to shield the name of Respondent; and

4.       in February 2025 the domain resolved to a job search website.

 

DISCUSSION

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.  

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires a two-fold enquiry—an investigation into whether a complainant has rights in a trademark, followed by an assessment of whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that trademark.

 

It is well established by decisions under this Policy that a trademark registered with a national authority is evidence of trademark rights (see, for example, Mothers Against Drunk Driving v. phix, FA 174052 (Forum Sept. 25, 2003)).  Complainant provides evidence of its registration of the trademark with the USPTO, a national trademark authority and so the Panel finds proof of trademark rights.

 

Further, the Panel finds that the compared terms are confusingly similar. For the purposes of comparison, the gTLD, ".com", can be disregarded. Addition of the descriptive word "get" does not distinguish the domain name from the trademark which remains well recognizable in the whole (see, for example, Morgan Stanley v. Morgan Stanley, FA 1169733 (Forum May 3, 2008) finding addition of a gTLD irrelevant for the purposes of comparison; Bond & Co. Jewelers, Inc. v. Tex. Int'l Prop. Assocs., FA 937650 (Forum Apr. 30, 2007) finding that the elimination of spaces between terms does not establish distinguish a domain name from a complainant's mark; 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.").

 

The Panel therefore finds that the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy are satisfied.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy states that any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be proved based on its evaluation of all evidence presented, shall demonstrate rights or legitimate interests to a domain name for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy:

 

(i) before any notice to you of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services;  or

 

(ii) you (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the domain name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights;  or

 

(iii) you are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.

 

Complainant need only make out a prima facie case that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, after which the onus shifts to Respondent to rebut that case by demonstrating those rights or interests (see, for example, Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000‑0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000)).

 

The name of Respondent was shielded by a privacy service. Once revealed in consequence of these proceedings as Virginia Davis nothing indicated that Respondent might be commonly known by the domain name (see, for example, Tercent Inc. v. Lee Yi, FA 0139720 (Forum Feb. 10, 2003) stating "nothing in [the respondent's] WHOIS information implies that [the respondent] is 'commonly known by' the disputed domain name" as one factor in determining that Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) does not apply").

 

There is no evidence that Respondent has any trademark rights.  Complainant states that Respondent has no permission to use the trademark and the Panel accepts the truth of that statement. The use of the domain name to resolve to a website showing Complainant's trademark and offering identical services to those provided by Complainant under the trademark is clearly not a bona fide offering of goods or services.

 

A prima facie case has been made (see, for example, Nokia Corp. v. Eagle, FA 1125685 (Forum Feb. 7, 2008) finding the respondent's use of the disputed domain name to pass itself off as the complainant in order to advertise and sell unauthorized products of the complainant was not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii); Dell Inc. v. Devesh Tyagi, FA 1785301 (Forum June 2, 2018) ("Respondent replicates Complainant's website and displays Complainant's products. The Panel finds that this use is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) & (iii).")).

 

The onus shifts to Respondent. As mentioned already, Respondent made an informal submission, the relevant portion of which claims that the resolving site "is for a business that has not yet started, the logo was created through an AI generator, … Upon being notified, I changed any alleged reference to Indeed."

 

Those statements do not discharge the onus. The business – at least as presented online – had started. The claim that "the logo" – by which the Panel understands Respondent to mean the trademark - was AI generated does not absolve Respondent from responsibility for what appeared on the site, not does it explain the choice of the domain name itself. Finally, whether or not the trademark was removed from the site – a matter of which there is no evidence – a domain name found to be confusingly similar to the trademark is assumed to still be in use in respect of identical services.  

 

The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or interests and so finds that Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Complainant must prove on the balance of probabilities both that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith and used in bad faith.  

 

Further guidance on that requirement is found in paragraph 4(b) of the Policy, which sets out four circumstances, any one of which is taken to be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith if established. 

 

The four specified circumstances are:

 

'(i) circumstances indicating that the respondent has registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the respondent's documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or

 

(ii) the respondent has registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or

 

(iii) the respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or

 

(iv) by using the domain name, respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, internet users to respondent's website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the respondent's website or location or of a product or service on the site or location.'

 

The Panel finds that Respondent's conduct is directly caught by paragraph 4(b)(iv) above. The Panel has already found confusing similarity. Complainant submits "[u]pon information and belief, Respondent used this webpage for commercial gain by receiving compensation from user clicks, and/or for phishing for user information upon account setup."  Whether those allegations are true or not, the Panel finds that the use of the disputed domain name is for commercial gain in one form or another, the exact mode being unimportant. In terms of the Policy, the Panel finds that Respondent intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of that website (see, for example, Charter Communications Holding Company, LLC v. Webdesk Two, FA 1800636 (Forum Sept. 5, 2018) finding bad faith in registration of <spectrumpack.com> because "[u]se of a domain name to create a false impression of affiliation with a complainant in order to compete with and disrupt the complainant's business is behavior indicative of bad faith registration and use per Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv).").

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied the third and final element of the Policy.

 

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

 

 

 

Debrett G. Lyons, Panelist

Dated:  July 16, 2025