The Complainant is ZipRecruiter, Inc., United Kingdom, represented by SafeNames Ltd., United Kingdom.
The Respondent is Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot, United States of America (“United States”). 2. The Domain Names and Registrar
The disputed domain names The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 3, 2019. On December 3, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On December 4, 2019, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is 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 December 6, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 26, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on January 8, 2020. The Center appointed Karen Fong as the sole panelist in this matter on January 16, 2020. 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 founded in 2010. It has over 7 million active job seekers, over 40 million job alert email subscribers and over 10,000 new companies every month. The Complainant currently has marketing operations in the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom. The Complainant offers its services under the trade mark ZIPRECRUITER. This trade mark is registered in many jurisdictions globally including the following: Trade Mark TM Registration No Registration Date Country Classes ZIPRECRUITER 3934310 March 22, 2011 United States 42 ZIPRECRUITER 015070873 February 3, 2016 European Union 9, 36, 41, 42 ZIPRECRUITER 979480 August 28, 2017 Canada 9, 41, 42 (the “Trade Mark”). The Complainant operates its business from the website located at “www.ziprecruiter.com”. The Complainant’s web-based platform is the foundation of its 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. In addition to the domain name, which is connected to its main website, the Complainant’s domain name portfolio includes the following: The Complainant also has a strong social media presence as well a top rated ZIPRECRUITER Mobile App. The Respondent registered the Domain Names on August 9, 2019. All the Domain Names resolve to landing pages which have pay-per-click links connected to the Complainant’s competitors (the “Website”). 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that the Domain Names are confusingly similar to the Trade Mark, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the Domain Names and that the Domain Names were registered and are being used in bad faith. The Complainant requests transfer of the Domain Names. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings General According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, for this Complaint to succeed in relation to the Domain Names, the Complainant must prove each of the following, namely that: (i) The Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has established that it has registered rights to the Trade Mark. The threshold test for confusing similarity involves the comparison between the trade mark and the domain name itself to establish if the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the complainant’s trade mark. The trade mark would generally have to be recognizable within the domain name. In this case the Domain Names consist of misspellings of the Trade Mark as follows: 1. It is well established that domain names which consists of a common, obvious, or intentional misspelling of a trade mark is considered to be confusingly similar to the relevant mark for the purposes of the first element. This stems from the fact that the domain name contains sufficiently recognizable aspects of the relevant mark (See section 1.9.1 of WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”). This is a typical typosquatting case as the five Domain Names are clearly misspellings of the Trade Mark. For the purposes of assessing identity and confusing similarity under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, it is permissible for the Panel to ignore the Top-Level Domain (“TLD”) irrespective of the particular TLD and the ordinary meaning ascribed to a particular TLD. It is viewed as a standard registration requirement. The Panel finds that the Domain Names are confusingly similar to a trade mark in which the Complainant has rights and that the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy therefore are fulfilled. C. Rights or Legitimate Interests Pursuant to paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, a respondent may establish rights to or legitimate interests in a disputed 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, or to tarnish the trade mark or service mark at issue. Although the Policy addresses ways in which a respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name, it is well established that, 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. Once such prima facie case is made, the burden of production shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant allegations or evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent does come forward with evidence of relevant right or legitimate interest, the panel weighs all the evidence, with the burden of proof always remaining on the complainant. The Complainant contends that to the best of its knowledge, the Respondent has not registered any trade mark for the term “ziprecruiter”. The Websites do not show any bona fide offering of goods or services. The Respondent is also not making any legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Names. The Complainant has never licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use the Trade Mark or apply or use any domain names that incorporate the Trade Mark or trade marks which are confusingly similar. The Websites redirect Internet users to pay-per-click sites, none of which confer any rights or legitimate interests. 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 Domain Names. The Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Names. D. Registered and Used in Bad Faith To succeed under the Policy, the Complainant must show that the Domain Names have been both registered and used in bad faith. It is a double requirement. The Panel is satisfied that the Respondent must have been aware of the Trade Marks when it registered the Domain Names. It is implausible that it was unaware of the Complainant when it registered the Domain Names given that all five Domain Names are misspellings of the Trade Mark and the popularity of the Trade Mark. In the WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.2 states as follows: “Noting the near instantaneous and global reach of the Internet and search engines, and particularly in circumstances where the complainant’s mark is widely known (including in its sector) or highly specific and a respondent cannot credibly claim to have been unaware of the mark (particularly in the case of domainers), panels have been prepared to infer that the respondent knew, or have found that the respondent should have known, that its registration would be identical or confusingly similar to a complainant’s mark. Further factors including the nature of the domain name, the chosen top-level domain, any use of the domain name, or any respondent pattern, may obviate a respondent’s claim not to have been aware of the complainant’s mark.” It is inconceivable that the Domain Names were selected by the Respondent without the Complainant in mind. As outlined under the second element above, the clear absence of rights or legitimate interests coupled with no credible explanation for the Respondent’s choice of the Domain Names is also a significant factor to consider (as stated in section 3.1.1 of WIPO Overview 3.0). The Domain Names fall into the category stated above and the Panel finds that registration is in bad faith. Further the use of the Domain Names is also in bad faith. Firstly, there is a presumption of bad faith in the registration and use of a domain name in typosquatting cases. As stated in TPI Holdings, Inc. v. LaPorte Holdings,WIPO Case No. D2006-0235, typosquatting – intentionally adding or deleting a letter or two, or transposing letters in, a valid mark of another in one’s domain name – is presumptive evidence of bad faith in registration and use of a disputed domain name. The Respondent’s use of the Websites also support a finding that Respondent has registered the Domain names, with a clear intention on the part of the Respondent to attract for commercial gain by confusing and misleading Internet users into believing that the Websites and the services provided were authorised or endorsed by the Complainant. The above is clearly bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. Thus the Panel concludes that the Respondent’s registration and use of the Domain Names are in bad faith. 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 Names, Karen Fong
(ii) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Names; and
(iii) The Domain Names were registered and are being used in bad faith. B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Addition of the letter “t” to “recruiter”
2.
Addition of the letter “e” at the end of “recruiter”
3.
Addition of the letter “t” at the end of “recruiter”
4.
Addition of the letter “y” to “recruiter”
5.
Addition of the letter “t” at the end of “zip”
Sole Panelist
Date: February 5, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy