Complainant is S, Inc. of San Francisco, California, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Winterfeldt IP Group PLLC, United States.
Respondent is Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC of Scottsdale, Arizona, United States / Alex Boyle of Portland, Oregon, United States, self-represented. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (expressed in Latin script as ) (the “Domain Name”) is registered with GoD, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 29, 2018. On November 29, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On November 30, 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 December 3, 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 December 4, 2018. On December 5, 2018, Respondent submitted an informal email.
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 December 7, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 27, 2018. Respondent did not submit any substantive response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Parties about the commencement of the panel appointment process on December 28, 2018.
The Center appointed Robert A. Badgley as the sole panelist in this matter on January 4, 2019. 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 S, Inc. describes itself as “the world’s leading customer relationship management (CRM) platform.” According to Complainant, it provides CRM and a variety of other cloud-based software and service products to over 150,000 companies worldwide.
Complainant uses its trademark RADIAN6 in connection with its “industry-leading social media monitoring platform, Salesforce Social Studio, which is used by more than half of the FORTUNE 100 companies.” Complainant has used the RADIAN6 mark in the United States since 2006, and the mark has been registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office since February 18, 2014 (trademark number 4483279). Complainant also holds numerous international registrations for the RADIAN6 mark. In addition, Complainant owns several domain names featuring its RADIAN6 mark, including , which it has owned since 2006.
The Domain Name was registered on September 13, 2018. The Domain Name resolves to a website with an error message stating that the visitor does not have permission to access the site, but the post-domain path resolves to a fake login page which features Complainant’s SALESFORCE mark and mimics graphically the look and feel of Complainant’s actual website. Respondent’s page invites users to log in to the Salesforce Social Studio. According to Complainant, this is a phishing scam.
Respondent’s website also contains click-through links to Complainant’s actual site and to Complainant’s applications on the iTunes App Store and Google Play. Complainant alleges that Respondent probably derives per-click revenue from these links. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
Complainant asserts that it has established the three elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the Domain Name. B. Respondent
Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions. By email to the Center dated December 5, 2018, Respondent stated: “I am certainly happy to discuss this matter further and cooperate in good faith.” He then provided his phone number. 6. Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy lists the three elements which Complainant must satisfy with respect to the Domain Name:
(i) the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
(ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and
(iii) the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel concludes that Complainant has rights in the mark RADIAN6 through registration and use. The Panel also finds the Domain Name to be confusingly similar, indeed almost identical, to that mark. The mark includes the word “Radian”, whereas the Domain Name includes the same letters except the letter “i” is not the Latin-script text but is the internationalized diacritic letter “í”. The letters look so similar, differing only inasmuch as the Latin-script “I” has a dot at the top and the diacritic “í” has essentially a small accent aigu at the top. In most standard font sizes, the two characters are almost indistinguishable to the naked eye.
Complainant has established Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i). B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Pursuant to paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, Respondent may establish its rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, among other circumstances, by showing any of the following elements:
(i) before any notice to you [Respondent] of the dispute, your 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) you [Respondent] (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the Domain Name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
(iii) you [Respondent] are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.
The Panel concludes that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. It is undisputed that Complainant never granted permission to Respondent to use its RADIAN6 trademark in any manner. Respondent has not come forward in this proceeding to articulate or prove his bona fides vis-à-vis the Domain Name, and no rights or legitimate interests emerge from the undisputed record in this case. On the contrary, the record clearly indicates that Respondent is attempting to deceive Internet users into believing that Respondent’s website is in fact Complainant’s site.
Complainant has established Policy paragraph 4(a)(ii). C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides that the following circumstances, “in particular but without limitation,” are evidence of the registration and use of the Domain Name in “bad faith”:
(i) circumstances indicating that Respondent has registered or has acquired the Domain Name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the Domain Name registration to Complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of its documented out of pocket costs directly related to the Domain Name; or
(ii) that Respondent has registered the Domain Name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
(iii) that Respondent has registered the Domain Name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) that by using the Domain Name, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on Respondent’s website or location.
The Panel concludes that Respondent has registered and used the Domain Name in bad faith.
The Panel first finds it obvious that Respondent had Complainant’s distinctive RADIAN6 mark in mind when registering the Domain Name. This is manifest from the content at Respondent’s website, which textually and graphically is almost identical to the content at Complainant’s site.
Respondent also has used the Domain Name in bad faith pursuant to the above-quoted Policy paragraph 4(b)(iv). Complainant alleges plausibly that Respondent has used the Domain Name in part to engage in a phishing scam by means of a bogus login box, and that Respondent probably derives per-click revenue through certain links at the website. Respondent has not denied either of these plausible allegations, either of which (and certainly both in tandem) suffices as bad faith use under Policy paragraph 4(b)(iv).
Complainant has established Policy paragraph 4(a)(iii). 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.
Robert A. Badgley
Sole Panelist
Date: January 7, 2019
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy