The Complainant is ZipRecruiter, Inc, United States of America (“United States”), represented by SafeNames Ltd., United Kingdom.
The Respondent is yin jun, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed in English with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on October 29, 2019. On October 29, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On October 31, 2019, 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 November 1, 2019 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 in English on November 13, 2019. On November 1, 2019, the Center transmitted an email in English and Chinese to the Parties regarding the language of the proceeding. The Complainant submitted a request that English be the language of the proceeding on November 13, 2019. The Respondent did not comment on the language of the proceeding. 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 in English and Chinese, and the proceedings commenced on November 15, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 5, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on December 6, 2019. The Center appointed Deanna Wong Wai Man as the sole panelist in this matter on December 20, 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 The Complainant in this proceeding is ZipRecruiter, Inc., an online recruitment company founded in 2010, with operations in the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom. The Complainant offers an online platform allowing employers to post jobs and manage the applicant process, as well as permitting job seekers to search and receive alerts regarding job offers. The Complainant offers its services to both companies and individuals and states that its platform is accessed by over seven million active job seekers, has over 40 million job alert email subscribers and receives registrations for over 10,000 new companies every month. The Complainant owns a portfolio of trademark registrations (word marks) for ZIPRECRUITER, for instance, United States trademark registration number 3934310, registered on March 22, 2011 and European Union trademark registration number 015070873, registered on June 13, 2016. The disputed domain name was registered on July 12, 2014 and is currently linked to an active website, displaying what are presumed to be pay-per-click hyperlinks to third party service providers of recruitment services, which include competitors of the Complainant. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant essentially contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademarks for ZIPRECRUITER, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, and that the disputed domain name was registered, and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant claims that its trademarks are famous and well regarded in the recruitment sector, and provides evidence of its marketing materials and awards, as well as prior decisions in UDRP proceedings (such as ZipRecruiter, Inc. v. Domain Administrator, See PrivacyGuardian.org / Shi Lei,WIPO Case No. D2018-2289), which state that the Complainant and its ZIPRECRUITER trademark are well known. Moreover, the Complainant provides evidence that the disputed domain name is linked to an active website displaying what are presumed to be pay-per-click hyperlinks to third party service providers of recruitment services, which include competitors of the Complainant. The Complainant essentially contends that such use does not confer any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name and constitutes use in bad faith. The Complainant requests the transfer of the disputed domain name. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings 6.1. Preliminary Issue: Language of the Proceeding Pursuant to paragraph 11(a) of the Rules, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the Registration Agreement. However, the Panel is given the authority to determine a language of the proceeding other than the language of the Registration Agreement, taking into account the circumstances of every individual case. The Complainant states that it acknowledges that the Registration Agreement is in Chinese. Nevertheless, the Complainant filed its Complaint in English, and requests that the language of the proceeding be English. In considering the Complainant’s request that the language of the proceeding be English, the Panel has carefully considered all elements of this case, in particular, the Complainant’s request that the language of the proceeding be English; the lack of comment on the language of the proceeding and the lack of response on the merits of the Respondent (the Panel notes that the Respondent had the opportunity to put forward arguments in either English or Chinese); the fact that the disputed domain name resolves to an active webpage, which only contains text in English (and contains no text in Chinese), so that the Panel concludes that the Respondent is able to understand and communicate in English; the fact that panels in prior UDRP decisions involving the Respondent have accepted English as the language of the proceeding on the basis of its presumed knowledge of English (see LinkedIn Corporation v. yin jun,WIPO Case No. D2015-1070); and the fact that Chinese as the language of the proceeding could lead to unwarranted costs and delays for the Complainant. In view of all these elements, the Panel rules that the language of the proceeding shall be English. 6.2. Discussion and Findings on the Merits The Policy requires the Complainant to prove three elements: (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 respect of the disputed domain name; and (iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. Based on the evidence and arguments submitted, the Panel’s findings are as follows: A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Panel finds that the Complainant has shown that it has valid rights in the sign ZIPRECRUITER based on its intensive use and registration of the same as a trademark in several jurisdictions, incidentally years prior to the registration of the disputed domain name. Moreover, as to confusing similarity, the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.9, states: “A domain name which consists of a common, obvious, or intentional misspelling of a trademark is considered by panels to be confusingly similar to the relevant mark for purposes of the first element.” In this case, the Panel considers that the disputed domain name is clearly selected by intentionally misspelling the Complainant’s trademark for ZIPRECRUITER, incorporating such trademark in its entirety, except that a single character (“p”) of the trademark is omitted. According to the Panel, this is a clear case of intentional misspelling of the Complainant’s trademark, or “typosquatting”. Accordingly, the Panel rules that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark and the first element required by the Policy is fulfilled. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant has demonstrated that the Respondent is not an authorized reseller, service provider, licensee or distributor, and is not making legitimate noncommercial use or fair use of the Complainant’s trademark. To the contrary, the Respondent is actively using the disputed domain name, by linking it to a website displaying what are presumed to be pay-per-click hyperlinks to third party service providers of recruitment services, which include competitors of the Complainant. The Panel therefore considers that none of the circumstances of right or legitimate interests envisaged by paragraph 4(c) of the Policy apply. Furthermore, the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and the nature of the disputed domain name carries a risk of implied affiliation with the Complainant (see WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.5.1). The Panel also notes that no evidence or arguments have been submitted by the Respondent in reply. The Panel therefore rules that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements for the second element under the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The registration of the disputed domain name, which incorporates the Complainant’s trademark in its entirety, except for the intentional omission of the “p”, is clearly intended to mislead and divert consumers away from the Complainant’s official website, to the website linked to the disputed domain name. Given the reputation and fame of the Complainant’s trademark, and the clearly intentional typosquatting, the Panel holds that the registration of the disputed domain name was obtained in bad faith. Moreover, even a cursory Internet search at the time of registration of the disputed domain name would have made it clear to the Respondent that the Complainant owned a registered trademark in ZIPRECRUITER and uses it extensively. The Panel further notes the nature of the disputed domain name, which carries a risk of implied affiliation or association with the Complainant. In the Panel’s view, the preceding elements clearly indicate the bad faith of the Respondent, and the Panel therefore rules that it has been demonstrated that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith. As to use of the disputed domain name in bad faith, the website linked to the disputed domain name currently displays pay-per-click hyperlinks to third party service providers, which include competitors of the Complainant. This is clear evidence of bad faith use of the disputed domain name. Moreover, the Complainant also provides evidence that the Respondent was involved in seven prior UDRP procedures, about domain names registered by the Respondent which incorporated, or were similar to, famous trademarks (see LinkedIn Corporation v. yin jun, supra). The Panel deducts from this fact that the Respondent has engaged in a pattern of trademark-abusive domain name registrations. Finally, the Complainant has provided evidence that the Respondent has also attempted to sell the disputed domain name for a profit on the platform “Domain Aftermarket”, which is further evidence of the Respondent’s bad faith. The preceding elements lead the Panel to conclude that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name in bad faith, to take unfair advantage of the Complainant’s trademarks. The Panel therefore rules that it has been demonstrated that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. Finally, the Respondent has failed to provide any response or evidence to establish its good faith or absence of bad faith. The Panel therefore rules that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of the third element under 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, Deanna Wong Wai Man
Sole Panelist
Date: January 3, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy