Everyday Health, Inc. v. Animashaun Olalekan
Claim Number: FA2211002022046
Complainant is Everyday Health, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Alyssa Flores of Ziff Davis, LLC, New York, USA. Respondent is Animashaun Olalekan (“Respondent”), Nigeria.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <migraineagain.org>, registered with NameCheap, Inc.
The undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his or her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on November 29, 2022; Forum received payment on November 29, 2022.
On November 29, 2022, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <migraineagain.org> 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 November 30, 2022, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of December 20, 2022 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 firstname.lastname@example.org. Also on November 30, 2022, 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 December 21, 2022, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Sandra J. Franklin 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.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
1. Respondent’s <migraineagain.org> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <migraineagain.org> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and uses the <migraineagain.org> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent did not file a Response.
Everyday Health, Inc. is a global, multi-platform health and wellness company that owns and operates the Migraine Again brand and website. Complainant holds a registration for the MIGRAINE AGAIN mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 6,746,693, registered May 31, 2022).
Respondent registered the <migraineagain.org> domain name on October 24, 2022, and uses it to pass off as Complainant.
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. 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”).
The Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the MIGRAINE AGAIN mark based on registration with the USPTO. See DIRECTV, LLC v. The Pearline Group, FA 1818749 (Forum Dec. 30, 2018) (“Complainant’s ownership of a USPTO registration for DIRECTV demonstrate its rights in such mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”)
Respondent’s <migraineagain.org> domain name uses the full MIGRAINE AGAIN mark and simply adds the “.org” gTLD. Adding a gTLD does not distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See International Soap Box Derby, Inc. v. Domain Admin / Privacy Protection Service INC d/b/a PrivacyProtect.org, FA 1602433 (Forum Mar. 4, 2015) (“The domain name contains the mark in its entirety, merely eliminating the spaces between the terms of the mark and adding the generic Top Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.org.” These alterations of the mark, made in forming the domain name, do not save it from the realm of identity or confusing similarity under the standards of the Policy.”) Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent’s <migraineagain.org> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s MIGRAINE AGAIN mark.
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Once Complainant makes a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)); see also Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) (“Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests”).
Complainant contends that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <migraineagain.org> domain name as Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name and is not authorized to use the MIGRAINE AGAIN mark. The WHOIS information of record names “Animashaun Olalekan” as the registrant of the disputed domain name. The Panel therefore finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and thus has no rights under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). 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).
Complainant also provides evidence showing that Respondent is using the disputed domain name to pass off as Complainant. The Panel finds that using a disputed domain name to pass off as a complainant is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, and thus Respondent has no rights under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Google Inc. v. Pritam Singh / Pandaje Technical Services Pvt Ltd., FA 1660771 (Forum Mar. 17, 2016) (agreeing that respondent has not shown any bona fide offering of goods or services or any legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii) as the respondent used the complainant’s mark and logo on a resolving website.); see also 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 unauthorised 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.”).
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Complainant asserts that Respondent registered and uses the <migraineagain.org> domain name in bad faith to cause confusion as to the source of its website or its affiliation in order to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website. Using a disputed domain name to create a likelihood of confusion as to the sponsorship or affiliation of the resolving website for commercial gain is evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv). See Nestlé Waters North America, Inc. v. Domain Administrator / Fundacion Privacy Services LTD, FA 1792308 (Forum July 22, 2018) (Finding Respondent uses the domain names to point to a site which offers links relating to Complainant’s business. “Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain Internet users to its website by creating likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trade marks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the web site likely to disrupt the business of the Complainant.”). Accordingly, the Panel finds disruption of Complainant’s business for Respondent’s commercial gain, bad faith under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv).
Complainant contends that Respondent registered the <migraineagain.org> domain name in bad faith by impersonating Complainant and offering fictitious job offers. This constitutes phishing and is evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Morgan Stanley v. Bruce Pu, FA 1764120 (Forum Feb. 2, 2018) (“[T]he screenshot of the resolving webpage allows users to input their name and email address, which Complainant claims Respondent uses that to fraudulently phish for information. Thus, the Panel agrees that Respondent phishes for information and finds that Respondent does so in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”) Complainant provides screenshot evidence of the Respondent’s job scam. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Complainant also asserts that Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the MIGRAINE AGAIN mark, as evinced by the attempted fraudulent job scam perpetrated by Respondent. Complainant states that it first used the MIGRAINE AGAIN mark in 2014, well before Respondent registered the disputed domain name on October 24, 2022. The Panel agrees with Complainant and finds that Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See 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.”).
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <migraineagain.org> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist
Dated: December 22, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page