The Complainant is ZipRecruiter, Inc. of United States of America (“United States”), represented by SafeNames Ltd., United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (“United Kingdom”).
The Respondents are Postoffice Mailing Solutions Pvt. Ltd of Mumbai, India / Laksh Internet Solutions Private Limited of Mumbai, India / Tech Domain Services Private Limited of Mumbai, India / Web Master Internet Services Private Limited of Thane, India / SMVS Consultancy Private Limited of Mumbai, India / Cyber Domain Services Private Limited of Mumbai, India. 2. The Domain Names and Registrar
The disputed domain names , , , , and are registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainR (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 31, 2018. On August 31, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On September 1, 2018, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondents are 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 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on September 11, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was October 1, 2018.
The Center received a communication from a person claiming to be the representative of the Respondent Web Master Internet Services Private Limited on September 28, 2018.
The Center informed the Parties of the commencement of the panel appointment process on October 2, 2018.
The Center appointed Fabrizio Bedarida as the sole panelist in this matter on October 10, 2018. 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 is an American online recruitment company, attracting over seven million active job seekers, over 40 million job alert email subscribers and over 10,000 new companies every month. Founded in 2010, the Complainant segments its business into two main categories, providing its services to individuals and to commercial entities. The Complainant currently has marketing operations in the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom.
The Complainant is inter alia the owner of:
United States Trademark No. 3934310, ZIPRECRUITER, registered on March 22, 2011 – Class 42;
European Union Trade Mark No. 015070873, ZIPRECRUITER, registered on June 13, 2016 – Classes 9, 36, 41 and 42;
Canadian Trademark No. TMA979480, ZIPRECRUITER, registered on August 28, 2017 – Classes 9, 41 and 42.
The Complainant’s web-based platform operates from the website located at “”. The Complainant’s web-based platform is the foundation of their business, allowing employers to post jobs and manage the applicant process, as well as permitting job seekers to search and/or receive alerts regarding the latest job posts.
The Complainant is inter alia also the owner of the following domain names:
Domain Name
Registration Date
May, 2015
June, 2015
January, 2016
May, 2013
September, 2010
The disputed domain names were registered by the Respondents between November 3-16, 2017.
Since registration, the disputed domain names have resolved to pay-per-click (PPC) parking pages with links related to job postings and recruitment.
The Complainant’s trademark registrations predate the registration of the disputed domain names. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the ZIPRECRUITER trademark, that the Respondents have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names, and that the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith.
Regarding the Respondents’ identity, the Complainant has requested a consolidation of multiple domain names and respondents. In support of the above request the Complainant claims that:
1. All the Respondents are related, to the extent that a sufficient unity of interest exists such that they may essentially be treated as a single domain name holder for the purposes of Policy paragraph 3(c) of the Rules.
2. The disputed domain names are commonly controlled, on the basis that the web contents of the websites are substantially identical and ultimately refer Internet users to a common advertising page.
3. All the Respondents are based in Mumbai, in the western Indian state of Maharashtra.
4. Lastly, following the Complainant’s cease and desist letters to all six registrant emails, the Complainant received the exact same response from all Respondents, with the exception of one. B. Respondent
The Respondents did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions, except for an email communication received from a person claiming to be the representative of the Respondent Web Master Internet Services Private Limited, and stating that they are not related to any of the domain names. This communication was sent from an email address that differed from the one indicated in the WhoIs of the corresponding disputed domain name. 6. Discussion and Findings 6.1. Consolidation of Multiple Respondents
According to the registration information verified by the Registrar, the disputed domain names are registered by Postoffice Mailing Solutions Pvt. Ltd of Mumbai, India / Laksh Internet Solutions Private Limited of Mumbai, India / Tech Domain Services Private Limited of Mumbai, India / Web Master Internet Services Private Limited of Thane, India / SMVS Consultancy Private Limited of Mumbai, India / Cyber Domain Services Private Limited of Mumbai, India. The Complainant asserts that the above indicated Respondents are one and the same entity.
In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 3(c), a complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain-name holder. Although the names of the disputed domain names’ registrants are different, the Panel on the evidence available (including, for example, the fact that five of the registrants responded – from the corresponding five registrants’ emails indicated in the WhoIs details of the disputed domain names – to the Complainant’s cease and desist letter with the exact same response, that all disputed domain names are registered with the same Registrar on the same date or within a very short period of time, that all disputed domain names resolves to identical PPC pages and that all registrants are based in the same region of India) finds that all the disputed domain names identified in the Complaint are registered by the same domain name holder or at least are under common control.
The Panel, therefore concludes in the circumstances of this case that consolidation would be fair and equitable to all the Parties and procedurally efficient, and therefore accepts the Complainant’s request to address all the disputed domain names in one case under the Rules, paragraphs 10(e) and 3(c). Accordingly, the Respondents will be collectively referred to as the “Respondent” hereinafter. 6.2. Substantive Issues
In order for the Complainant to obtain a transfer of the disputed domain names, paragraphs 4(a)(i)-(iii) of the Policy require that the Complainant must demonstrate to the Panel that:
(i) The disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
(ii) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names; and
(iii) The disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established rights in the ZIPRECRUITER trademark.
The disputed domain names , , , , and consist of clear misspellings of the Complainant’s ZIPRECRUITER trademark.
It is well established that where the Complainant’s trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain name, misspellings of the same are not sufficient to prevent a finding of confusing similarity.
On the contrary, obvious misspellings such as those in the present case, can signal an intention on the part of the Respondent to confuse and mislead users seeking the Complainant’s domain name (see section 1.9 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”)).
Therefore, the Panel finds all the disputed domain names to be confusingly similar to the ZIPRECRUITER trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
This Panel finds that the Complainant has made a prima facie case that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. The Respondent has no connection to or affiliation with the Complainant, and the Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized the Respondent to use or register any domain name incorporating the Complainant’s trademark. The Respondent does not appear to be engaged in any legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain names, nor in any use in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. In addition, the Respondent does not appear to be commonly known by the disputed domain names or by a similar name. Moreover, in response to the Complainant’s contentions, the Respondent has not claimed any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Panel finds that based on the record, the Complainant has demonstrated the Respondent’s bad faith pursuant to paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.
Based on the evidence put forward by the Complainant, the Panel is of the opinion that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s trademark registrations and rights to the ZIPRECRUITER mark when it registered the disputed domain names.
The Respondent’s knowledge of the ZIPRECRUITER mark is particularly obvious, given the renown it has acquired and the Respondent’s choice to register six domain names that consist of obvious misspellings of the Complainant’s trademark.
In fact, the Respondent is taking advantage of common typing mistakes, to redirect mistaken users to a website which features links to the Complainant’s competitors.
Therefore, the Panel finds that the Respondent knew of the Complainant’s marks and intentionally intended to create an association with the Complainant and its areas of business at the time of registration of the disputed domain names.
Moreover, the Panel notes the following:
It is reasonable to assume from the Respondent’s response to the Complainant’s cease and desist letter that the Respondent is engaged in registering domain names, possibly consisting of and/or corresponding to third parties’ trademarks, with the intention of selling them to the legitimate holder of the corresponding trademarks, for amounts that exceed the Respondent’s out-of-pocket expenses in registering the domain names, and this is further inference of the Respondent’s lack of rights and legitimate interests as well as bad faith registration and use.
The Respondent creates a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademarks by registering domain names that incorporate the Complainant’s ZIPRECRUITER trademark almost in its entirety. This confuses Internet users looking for the Complainant’s products and services, and misleads them as to the source of the disputed domain names and websites.
Finally, the Respondent has not responded to (nor denied) the assertions made by the Complainant in this proceeding, with the sole exception of the Respondent Web Master Internet Services Private Limited, who claimed to be unaware of any domain name being applied on their behalf.
On the balance of probabilities, it appears that the Respondent was trying to hide its true identity by presenting itself with different names and addresses, possibly belonging to third parties. This can be considered further inference of bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain names.
Finally, it appears that the Respondent’s emails are associated with similar domain names which relate to third party brands such as CAPITAL ONE, LEGO, PAYPAL, AMAZON and CITIZENS BANK. This is a further element that suggests a pattern of abusive registrations.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. 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 names , , , , and be transferred to the Complainant.
Fabrizio Bedarida
Sole Panelist
Date: October 22, 2018
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy