The Complainant is Qualtries, LLC of Provo, Utah, United States of America (“United States”), represented internally.
The Respondent is Privacydotlink, Customer 3753034 of Seven Mile Beach, Grand Cayman, Cayman Islands, Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (“United Kingdom”) / Zhichao Yang of Hefei, Anhui, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Uniregistrar Corp (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 27, 2018. On September 28, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On October 2, 2018, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on October 12, 2018 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on October 16, 2018.
The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended 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 October 18, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was November 7, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on November 8, 2018.
The Center appointed Miguel B. O’Farrell as the sole panelist in this matter on November 14, 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 Qualtries, LLC was founded in 2002. It is a SaaS company that enables users to collect and analyze data online, such as market research, product testing and employee evaluations. The primary business activity of the Complainant consists of providing software and other applications for survey administration.
The Complainant is based in Provo, Utah, United States. The Complainant claims to have 15 additional offices worldwide, including in Singapore and Tokyo, Japan, and its software is currently used in over 90 countries, with over 8,500 brands and organizations as clients, with more than two million individual users.
The Complainant is the owner of United States trademark registration No. 3,530,045 QUALTRICS registered on November 11, 2008, as the result of an application filed on October 15, 2007, and claims to hold registrations for the same mark in a total of 43 countries, all of which are associated with “providing temporary use of computer software accessed via Internet in the field of research surveys”.
The Complainant claims to have been using the QUALTRICS trademark since February 18, 2005.
The disputed domain name was registered on September 9, 2018 and relates to a website which includes hyperlinks that direct users to websites for businesses similar to those of the Complainant. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark QUALTRICS in which the Complainant has rights and that the website to which the disputed domain name relates has a series of advertisements that include references to competing survey applications and online survey software, moreover, that the hyperlinks of those advertisements direct users to websites for competing businesses.
The Complainant submits that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name primarily “to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to his or her website by creating a likelihood of confusion.” Therefore, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate Interests with respect to the disputed domain name, and the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
Furthermore, the Complainant indicates that the Respondent owns 1,295 other domain names, many of which are substantially similar to well-known international brands.
Finally, the Complainant submits that the Complainant requests transfer of the disputed domain name to the Complainant. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, for this Complaint to succeed in relation to the disputed domain name, the Complainant must prove each of the following, namely that:
(i) The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;
(ii) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate Interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
(iii) The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has established that it has rights in the trademark QUALTRICS. The standing test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the trademark and the disputed domain name to determine whether the domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark. The test involves a side-by-side comparison of the domain name and the textual components of the relevant trademark to assess whether the mark is recognizable within the domain name.
In this case the disputed domain name contains the Complainant’s trademark, QUALTRICS in its entirety. The Panel considers that the addition of the first letter “q” does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity.
As set forth in section 1.7 of WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), “in cases where the domain name incorporates the entirety of a trademark the domain name will normally be considered confusingly similar to that mark.”
For the purposes of assessing identity or confusing similarity under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, it is permissible for the Panel to ignore the Top-Level Domain (“TLD”) as it is viewed as a standard registration requirement (section 1.11.1 of WIPO Overview 3.0). Thus, for the test for confusing similarity of this first prong the Panel shall disregard the “.com” included in the disputed domain name.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark QUALTRICS in which the Complainant has rights and that the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy therefore are fulfilled. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Pursuant to paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, a respondent may establish rights to or legitimate interests in a domain name by demonstrating any of the following:
(i) before any notice to it of the dispute, the respondent’s 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) the respondent has been commonly known by the domain name, even if it has acquired no trade mark or service mark rights; or
(iii) the respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain, to misleadingly divert consumers.
Although the Policy addresses ways in which a respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name, it is well established, as it is put in section 2.1 of WIPO Overview 3.0, that a complainant is required to make out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate Interests in the domain name. Once such prima facie case is made, the burden of production shifts to the respondent to come forward with appropriate allegations or evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent does come forward with some allegations of evidence of relevant rights or legitimate interests, the panel weighs all the evidence, with the burden of proof always remaining on the complainant.
The Complainant submits that it has never granted the Respondent the authority to use or register the disputed domain name.
The Panel notes that the disputed domain name was registered on September 9, 2018, whereas the Complainant’s trademark was first registered on November 11, 2008, i.e., 10 years before, and that the Complainant claims to have used it in a total of 43 countries beginning on February 18, 2005.
The Panel finds that the Complainant has made out a prima facie case, a case calling for an answer from the Respondent. The Respondent has not responded and the Panel is unable to conceive of any basis upon which the Respondent could sensibly be said to have any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
The Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name and that the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy therefore are fulfilled. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
To succeed under the Policy, a complainant must show that the disputed domain name has been both registered and used in bad faith. It is a double requirement.
The Panel considers that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name , almost identical to the Complainant’s trademark QUALTRICS, for the purpose of confusing Internet users and thereby attract them, for commercial gain, to the Respondent’s website.
As submitted by the Complainant, the Respondent has registered almost 1,300 domain names, many of which are substantially similar to well-known international brands, including several variations on , the credit card website for the bank Barclays.
The Panel is satisfied that the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant’s trademark QUALTRICS when it registered the disputed domain name on September 9, 2018.
The fact that there is a clear absence of rights or legitimate interests coupled with no credible explanation for the Respondent’s choice of the disputed domain name is also a significant factor to consider that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith (as stated in section 3.2.1 of WIPO Overview 3.0).
By using the disputed domain name, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to disrupt the Complainant’s relationship with its customers and ultimately profit illegitimately from the goodwill attached to the Complainant’s mark QUALTRICS by creating a likelihood of confusion to Internet users with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement. This amounts to bad faith registration and use under paragraph 4(b)(iv) 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 name, , be transferred to the Complainant.
Miguel B. O’Farrell
Sole Panelist
Date: November 28, 2018
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy