The Complainant is LinkedIn Corporation of Mountain View, California, United States of America (the "USA"), represented by The GigaLaw Firm, Douglas M. Isenberg, Attorney at Law, LLC, USA.
The Respondent is Direct Privacy, Domain Name Proxy Service, Inc. of Metairie, Los Angeles, USA. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with DNC Holdings, Inc. (the "Registrar"). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on March 27, 2014. On March 28, 2014, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On April 3, 2014, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details.
The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy" or "UDRP"), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules"), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Supplemental Rules").
In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on April 15, 2014. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was May 5, 2014. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on May 6, 2014.
The Center appointed Angela Fox as the sole panelist in this matter on May 15, 2014. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7. 4. Factual Background
The Complainant, LinkedIn Corporation, is the provider of the well-known professional networking website at "", which promotes and markets under the trademark LINKEDIN.
The Complainant's LinkedIn service was launched in 2003 and has some 277 million members worldwide, including executives from every Fortune 500 company. It is the largest professional network on the Internet. The Complainant operates its LinkedIn service in 22 languages, and the Complainant's LinkedIn website is the 12 most popular website in the world and the 7th most popular in the USA, where the parties are based. The number of unique visitors to the Complainant's LinkedIn website has steadily grown year on year, increasing by some 30% yearly to average 142 million in the third quarter of 2013.
The Complainant is the owner of numerous trademark registrations for LINKEDIN and marks incorporating it, including the following USA trademark registrations, details of which were annexed to the Complaint:
Mark
Reg. No.
Date of First Use in Commerce
Date of Registration
3,959,413
July 2008
May 10, 2011
3,963,244
July 2008
May 17, 2011
3,967,561
July 2008
May 24, 2011
3,971,642
April 2007
May 31, 2011
3,971,643
September 2007
May 31, 2011
3,971,644
May 2003
May 31, 2011
3,979,174
July 2008
June 14, 2011
4,007,079
May 2003
August 2, 2011
4,023,512
April 2007
September 6, 2011
4,016,685
September 2007
August 23, 2011
4,067,996
November 2010
December 6, 2011
4,158,263
November 2010
June 12, 2012
4,023,236
December 2008
September 6, 2011
4,147,007
January 1, 2011
May 22, 2012
4,109,229
September 7, 2011
March 6, 2012
3,975,152
December 2008
June 7, 2011
4,147,008
January 1, 2011
May 22, 2012
4,060,449
September 7, 2011
November 22, 2011
3,074,241
May 5, 2003
March 28, 2006
3,074,242
May 5, 2003
March 28, 2006
3,303,349
May 30, 2004
October 2, 2007
The disputed domain name was registered on January 7, 2013. Annexed to the Complaint were print-outs from the Respondent's website showing that it is currently in use for a website that prominently displays the Complainant's LINKEDIN.COM trademark and invites visitors to take part in an "Annual Shopper Survey" with an opportunity to win "exclusive offers worth over $50!". Also attached to the Complaint were print-outs showing that previously the disputed domain name had been used to host pay-per-click links to third-party websites labelled "Linkedin Jobs", "Employment", "Tech Jobs", "Careers" and "Free Job Posting".
The Complainant also attached a copy of an apparent phishing scam email sent in relation to the disputed domain name from the email address "(...)@", received by the Complainant on November 13, 2013, reading:
We are currently upgrading our server, we have temporarily placed limitations access to your Linkedin
To update your access and connect to professionals around the world, Follow the link below to upgrade
[Link]
We are sorry for the inconvenience
Regards,
-Linkedin"" 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to trademarks in which it has rights, as it incorporates the whole of the Complainant's LINKEDIN and LINKEDIN.COM trademarks, and the additional letter "l" at the beginning is not sufficient to distinguish them.
The Complainant further submits that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Complainant has never authorized the Respondent to register or use its trademark in any manner. The Respondent has never been commonly known by the disputed domain name and has never acquired any trademark rights in it. The use of the disputed domain name in connection with promotions and pop-up windows unassociated with the Complainant does not, in the Complainant's submission, give rise to rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Moreover, use of the disputed domain name in connection with competing services (i.e., the links to job-related websites) is not a bona fide offering of goods or services within the meaning of paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy. The Respondent's use is also not bona fide, noncommercial or not misleading under paragraphs 4(c)(i) or 4(c)(iii) of the Policy and, therefore does not confer any rights or legitimate interests to the Respondent in the disputed domain name. Indeed, the Complainant says that the Respondent's use of the disputed domain name in connection with a survey and a monetized parking page are clearly misleading and commercial. Finally, the Complainant points to the Respondent's use of the disputed domain name in connection with an apparent phishing scheme as further evidence that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests.
Finally, the Complainant submits that the Respondent registered and has used the disputed domain name in bad faith. The Complainant states that the Respondent's motive in registering and using the disputed domain name appears to have been to disrupt the Complainant's business for potential gain in the form of click-through income. As the Respondent has posted links relating to jobs and employment, the Complainant submits that the Respondent is in that sense a competitor and that it registered the disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor contrary to paragraph 4(b)(iii) of the Policy. In addition, the Complainant argues that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trademarks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent's website or of a product or service on it, contrary to Paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. The Respondent's conduct, in the Complainant's submission, constitutes "opportunistic bad faith" and it is a clear case of typosquatting. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions and is in default. No exceptional circumstances explaining the default have been put forward. Therefore, in accordance with paragraphs 14 (a) and (b) of the Rules, the Panel will decide the Complaint and shall draw such inferences as it considers appropriate from the Respondent's default. 6. Discussion and Findings
Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, a complainant can only succeed in an administrative proceeding under the Policy if the panel finds that:
(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights;
(ii) the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and
(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
All three elements must be present before a complainant can succeed in an administrative proceeding under the Policy. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has proved that it owns registered trademark rights in LINKEDIN and trademarks incorporating LINKEDIN, including LLINKEDIN.COM.
The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant's LINKEDIN and LINKEDIN.COM trademarks in their entirety, differing only in the repetition of the initial letter "l". The repetition of the letter "l" at the beginning of the disputed domain name is a common and foreseeable typographical error that is likely to be made by Internet users typing the Complainant's trademarks into a browser bar, and is visually hardly noticeable. Numerous UDRP panels have found confusing similarity between trademarks and domain names that correspond to those trademarks but contain a single extra letter (and in particular one repeating an adjacent letter), on the basis that such domain names typically represent typosquatting (see, inter alia, Wikimedia Foundation Inc. v. Kevo Ouz a/k/a Online Marketing Realty,WIPO Case No. D2009-0798; E, Inc v. Triple E Holdings Limited,WIPO Case No. D2006-1095; Harrods Limited v. Harrods; Transure Enterprise Ltd,WIPO Case No. D2008-1687.
The disputed domain name is virtually indistinguishable from the Complainant's trademarks visually, and is indistinguishable phonetically. It appears intended to attract Internet users who make a common and predictable typographical error when typing the Complainant's trademarks into a browser bar.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to trademarks in which the Complainant has rights. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
There is nothing on the facts of this case to suggest that the Respondent could invoke any of the circumstances listed in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy in order to demonstrate a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name.
The Complainant has not authorised the Respondent to use its trademarks in any way, and there is no evidence that the Respondent has ever been commonly known by the disputed domain name nor that it has acquired any trademark rights in it.
Nor do the Respondent's activities in connection with the disputed domain name give rise to any rights or legitimate interests in it. The Respondent's use of a domain name that is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademarks for a website unconnected with the Complainant but prominently displaying the Complainant's LINKEDIN trademark is inherently misleading. The use of that website to offer commercial promotions unassociated with the Complainant and to host pay-per-click links to third-party websites in the Complainant's field does not amount to a bona fide offering of goods or services within the meaning of paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy (see, e.g., Wikimedia Foundation Inc. v. Moniker Privacy Services / Domain Admin, Frontline Media LLC,WIPO Case No. D2011-0106, in which the panel held that use of a domain name in connection with an unrelated survey website is not bona fide use because it is "designed to collect personal information from Internet visitors by falsely suggesting an association with the Complainant"; Six Continents Hotels, Inc., v. EnterSports Inc., WIPO Case No. D2008-1951, in which the panel stated, "Respondent's predatory use of the domain name as the address of a website that, at one time, advertised hotel services competing with the Complainant's business does not constitute a bona fide use of the domain name"; and Paragon Gifts, Inc. v. Domain.Contact,WIPO Case No. D2004-0107, in which the panel noted that "Respondent is attracting traffic by creating confusion among Complainant's customers, by using a domain name that is confusingly similar to Complainant's trademarks, and re-directing such traffic to Complainant's site for a profit. Such use cannot be deemed a bona fide offering of goods or services").
Moreover, the Respondent's evident use of the disputed domain name in connection with a phishing scheme is further evidence that the Respondent has no legitimate interest in the disputed domain name (see, inter alia, Home Retail Group v. Home Retail Group / Rafique Holding,WIPO Case No. D2012-2335, and The Coca-Cola Company v. Telex Departments /PrivacyP,WIPO Case No. D2013-1869, in which the panel considered that "use of the disputed domain name as an email address showed in correspondence, which correspondence seems intended to deceive third parties and through which Complainant is impersonated, constitutes enough evidence of bad faith.").
Numerous UDRP panels have found under the UDRP that "once the Complainant makes a prima facie showing that the registrant does not have rights or legitimate interests in the domain name, the evidentiary burden shifts to the registrant to rebut the showing by providing evidence of its rights or interests in the domain name" (see, for instance, The Vanguard Group, Inc. v. Lorna Kang,WIPO Case No. D2002-1064). In this case, however, the Respondent has made no effort to refute the Complainant's allegation that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
The Panel finds that the Complainant has made out a prima facie case under this heading, and the Respondent has done nothing to refute it. The Panel concludes that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Respondent has used the disputed domain name to attract Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trademarks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the Respondent's website and of the products and services promoted through it. The disputed domain name is inherently confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademarks and indeed appears intended to prey upon Internet users who make a common and foreseeable typographical error when typing the Complainant's name into a browser bar. The Complainant's trademark appears prominently on the website linked to the disputed domain name, although the Respondent has not been authorised to use it.
The Respondent's activities are clearly commercial in nature, initially focusing on the generation of click-through revenue and latterly on obtaining personal information from visitors to the Respondent's website through the use of commercial surveys, and the offering of commercial products as prizes.
Such activities contravene paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, and the Panel agrees that the Respondent's conduct constitutes opportunistic bad faith and is a clear case of typosquatting (see, inter alia, Six Continents Hotels, Inc. v. Finlaw Agency and ResS, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2002-1159, and Wikimedia Foundation Inc. v. Moniker Privacy Services / Domain Admin, Frontline Media LLC,WIPO Case No. D2011-0106.).
By using the disputed domain name to post links to job-related websites, moreover, the Respondent was acting in competition with the Complainant to attract Internet users looking for such websites, and the Respondent's registration and use of a domain name that is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark was calculated to disrupt the Complainant's business. Such conduct is contrary to paragraph 4(b)(iii) of the Policy (see inter alia, Six Continents Hotels, Inc. v. Six Continents Hotels, Inc. v. NA InterMos,WIPO Case No. D2006-1313; Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Whois Privacy, Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2005-0850, and Six Continents Hotels, Inc. v. Telmex Management Services, WIPO Case No. D2001-0996).
Finally, the use of the disputed domain name in connection with a phishing scheme, moreover, is further evidence of bad faith on the Respondent's part (see inter alia Home Retail Group v. Home Retail Group / Rafique Holding,WIPO Case No. D2012-2335, and The Coca-Cola Company v. Telex Departments /PrivacyP,WIPO Case No. D2013-1869).
The Panel finds that the Respondent registered and has used the disputed domain name in bad faith. 7. Decision
For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant.
Angela Fox
Sole Panelist
Date: June 6, 2014
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy