Complainant is ZipRecruiter, Inc., United States of America (“United States”), represented by SafeNames Ltd., United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (“United Kingdom”).
Respondent is Domain Administrator, See PrivacyG of Phoenix, Arizona, United States / Shi Lei of Hangzhou, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with NameSilo, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on October 9, 2018. On October 9, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On October 9, 2018, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to Complainant on October 10, 2018 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amended Complaint on October 22, 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on October 23, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was November 12, 2018. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on November 14, 2018.
The Center appointed Dinant T. L. Oosterbaan as the sole panelist in this matter on November 22, 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
Complainant is an online recruitment company with marketing operations in the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom, attracting over seven million active job seekers.
According to the evidence submitted by Complainant, Complainant has obtained multiple registrations for the trademark ZIPRECRUITER, including:
- the trademark ZIPRECRUITER registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office under number 3,934,310 and a registration date of March 22, 2011;
- European Union trademark ZIPRECRUITER number 015070873, registered on June 13, 2016.
In addition, Complainant has multiple domain names and websites consisting of the ZIPRECRUITER mark.
The Domain Name was registered on May 11, 2013. The Domain Name resolves to a website containing pay-per-click links.
The United States trademark registration of Complainant was issued prior to the registration of the Domain Name. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
Complainant submits that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ZIPRECRUITER trademark with a misspelling of the word “recruiter” of the ZIPRECRUITER trademark.
Complainant submits that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. According to Complainant, Respondent has made no attempt to use the Domain Name for any legitimate business purpose. Since registration, the Domain Name has resolved to pay-per-click parking pages with links related to job posting and recruitment. Complainant is also unaware of any circumstances under which Respondent could make legitimate use of the Domain Name in light of the fact that Respondent has never been licensed by Complainant or authorized in any way to use the distinctive ZIPRECRUITER marks. Moreover, Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant in anyway whatsoever and could not make any legitimate use of the Domain Name given the prior use, reputation and goodwill associated with Complainant’s brand.
Complainant asserts that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith. According to Complainant, Respondent would have had sufficient knowledge of Complainant’s rights at the time of registration. Complainant is recognized as one of the fastest growing technology companies in North America. Despite the fact that Respondent is allegedly based in China, it is highly unlikely that he was unaware of Complainant’s brand when registering the Domain Name, given the brand’s presence online. Furthermore, Complainant submits that the fact that Respondent offered the Domain Name for sale to Complainant in an email of July 2, 2018 for an amount of USD 5,000 is a clear demonstration that Respondent registered the Domain Name primarily for the purpose of selling it for an amount in excess of its documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the Domain Name. Finally, Complainant submits that Respondent has registered many domain names which incorporate famous trademarks in order to prevent the owners of such marks from obtaining registrations. B. Respondent
Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs the Panel to “decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and 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 the complainant proves each of the following three elements to obtain an order that the disputed domain name should be transferred or cancelled:
(i) the disputed domain name is 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 name; and
(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
The Panel will proceed to analyze whether the three elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are satisfied in this proceeding. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, Complainant must first of all establish rights in a trademark or service mark and secondly that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to that trademark or service mark.
Complainant has established that it is the owner of several trademark registrations for ZIPRECRUITER. The Domain Name , which deletes the letter “c” of the ZIPRECRUITER trademark, is a misspelling of this trademark and incorporates sufficiently recognizable aspects of it. Many UDRP panels have found that a disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a complainant’s trademark where the disputed domain name consists of a common, obvious or intentional misspelling of a trademark. See section 1.9 of the WIPO of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”). The generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” is disregarded under the first element confusing similarity test. See section 1.11 of the WIPO Overview 3.0.
The Panel finds that Complainant has proven that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademarks under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
In the opinion of the Panel, Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. Complainant has not licensed or otherwise permitted Respondent to use any of its trademarks or to register the Domain Name incorporating its trademarks. Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademarks of Complainant.
Based on the undisputed submission and evidence provided by Complainant the Domain Name resolves to a pay-per-click parking page with various sponsored links including one mentioning Complainant’s ZIPRECRUITER trademark. This parking page contains the following message, sometimes in the English language and at other times in a German translation of the same message: “The Sponsored Listings displayed above are served automatically by a third party. Neither the service provider nor the domain name owner maintain any relationship with the advertisers. In case of trademark issues please contact the domain owner directly (contact information can be found in whois).”
The Panel does not consider such use a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name. In addition, the website under the Domain Name does not accurately and prominently disclose the relationship between Respondent and Complainant as the holder of the well-known ZIPRECRUITER trademark, in particular as there has never been any business relationship between Complainant and Respondent. Respondent is also not commonly known by the Domain Name nor has he acquired any trademark or service mark rights.
No Response to the Complaint was filed and Respondent has not rebutted Complainant’s prima facie case.
Under these circumstances, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Panel finds that the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
Noting the status of the ZIPRECRUITER mark and the overall circumstances of this case, the Panel finds it more likely than not that Respondent knew or should have known of Complainant’s ZIPRECRUITER mark.
The Panel notes that the Domain Name resolves to a website containing sponsored pay-per-click links. The Panel also notes that the Domain Name is a misspelling of Complainant’s ZIPRECRUITER trademark, which indicates, in the circumstances of this case, that Respondent registered and uses the Domain Name with the intention to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the trademarks of Complainant as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its website or location or of a service on its website or location, which constitutes registration and use in bad faith pursuant to paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. As noted by previous UDRP panels, the fact that such links may be generated automatically does not prevent a finding of bad faith.
The Panel also notes the undisputed assertion of Complainant that it appears that bad faith registration and use is further indicated by the fact that the Domain Name was offered for sale to Complainant for an amount of USD 5,000, which indicates that Respondent likely registered the Domain Name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the Domain Name registration for valuable consideration in excess of his documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the Domain Name.
The Panel finally notes that Respondent is a systematic cyber squatter who has been found to have registered and used domain names in bad faith in multiple other cases under the Policy, which suggests a pattern of such conduct on the part of Respondent (see inter alia Fisher Asset Management LLC d/b/a Fisher Investments v. Domain Administrator; See PrivacyG / Shi Lei,WIPO Case No. D2018-2267; PPG Industries Ohio, Inc. v. Domain Administrator; See PrivacyG / Shi Lei,WIPO Case No. D2018-1394; Facebook, Inc., Instagram, LLC, Oculus VR, LLC v. PrivacyG / Shi Lei,WIPO Case No. D2018-1334 and Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Shi Lei,WIPO Case No. D2016-2039).
The Panel finds that Complainant has proven that the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith and paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy has been satisfied. 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 Domain Name be transferred to Complainant.
Dinant T. L. Oosterbaan
Sole Panelist
Date: December 3, 2018
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy