The Complainant is ZipRecruiter Inc., United States of America (“United States”), represented by SafeNames Ltd., United Kingdom.
The Respondent is Lynda Drysdale, Canada. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 12, 2019. On December 13, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On December 14, 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 December 17, 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 on December 17, 2019. 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 December 27, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was January 16, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on January 17, 2020. The Center appointed Andrew Brown Q.C. as the sole panelist in this matter on January 30, 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 states that it is a wellknown American online recruitment company with marketing operations in the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom. It also states that it was founded in 2010 and segments its business into two main categories, providing services to individuals and services for commercial entities. The Complainant states that it has substantive rights and interests in the term “ziprecruiter” arising from its exclusive, extensive, and consistent use of this term within the global marketplace. The Complainant also states that it has zealously expanded its trade mark portfolio across various jurisdictions globally and by way of example refers to the following trademark registrations: Trademark Origin Registration no. Date of registration Class ZIPRECRUITER United States 3934310 March 22, 2011 42 ZIPRECRUITER European Union 015070873 June 13, 2016 9, 36, 41, 42 ZIPRECRUITER Canada TMA979480 August 28, 2017 9, 41, 42 These are collectively referred to as the “ZIPRECRUITER” Mark. The Complainant states that its web-based platform is the foundation of its business - it provides the means by which employers post jobs and manage the applicant process and job seekers search and/or receive alerts regarding the latest job posts. The platform operates from a website located at “www.ziprecruiter.com ” and features the following logo extensively: The Complainant states that it has also registered its trademarks in country-code Top-Level Domains (“ccTLDs”), enabling users to access the Complainant’s services using their local TLD. Examples of its ccTLDs include: Domain name Registration date ziprecruiter.co.nz May, 2015 ziprecruiter.com.au June, 2015 ziprecruiter.co.fr January, 2016 ziprecruiter.co May, 2013 ziprecruiter.co.uk September, 2010 The Respondent registered the disputed domain name The Complainant asserts its rights in the ZIPRERUITER Mark. The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its ZIPRECRUITER Mark due to the only minor misspelling of the word “recruiter” by changing “i” to “l”. It also requests that the generic (“gTLD”) “.site” be disregarded for the purposes of comparison under the first element in light of the decision of Société Air France v. Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC / albuquerque Albuquerque, hwuaye,WIPO Case No. D2019-0191. The Complainant also contends that the Respondent has no rights in respect of the disputed domain name; the Respondent is not a licensee of the Complainant, nor has it been otherwise allowed by the Complainant to make any use of the ZIPRECRUITER Mark. Further, there is no evidence that the Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name. The Complainant also contends that the Respondent has no legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Complainant contends that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name to redirect Internet users to the Complainant’s own website with the intention of creating a false impression of an association between the Respondent and the Complainant and to disrupt the business of the Complainant. Finally, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith and in full knowledge of the Complainant’s rights. The Complainant states that the Respondent cannot deny knowledge of the Complainant when the Respondent is using the disputed domain name to redirect Internet users to the Complainant’s own website. Therefore, the Respondent is using the disputed domain name in bad faith as well. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Pursuant to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove each of the following elements with respect to the disputed domain name in order to succeed in this proceeding: (i) that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark in which the Complainant has rights; and (ii) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and (iii) that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant has provided evidence of its registrations in relation to its ZIPRECRUITER Mark in the United States, Europe and Canada. It has also provided evidence of its registrations in relation to its ZIPRECRUITER Mark in other jurisdictions and of the registration and use of its main website “www.ziprecruiter.com”. Accordingly, it is the Panel’s view that the Complainant has clearly and sufficiently demonstrated its rights in the ZIPRECRUITER Mark. The Panel is also satisfied that the Complainant is well-known by its ZIPRECRUITER Mark as a provider of recruitment services to both employers and job seekers. The Panel accepts that the disputed domain name is a misspelling of the Complainant’s ZIPRECRUITER Mark by the replacement of “I” with “L”. In this respect, the Panel accepts that a spelling mistake of this nature could easily be made by Internet users when typing the term “ziprecruiter” due to close proximity of “I” and “L” on a computer keyboard. It also accepts that both “i” and “l” look similar when in the “L” is in lowercase and therefore could easily be mistaken for one another. The Panel also accepts that the addition of the gTLD “.site” may be disregarded for the purposes of comparison under the first element. The Panel notes here the decision of Société Air France v. Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC / albuquerque Albuquerque, hwuaye, supra, as brought to its attention by the Complainant, and in which it was stated that “.site” “does not have an impact on the overall impression of the dominant portion of the disputed domain name” and “the mere addition of a Top-Level Domain to a wellknown trademark does not give any distinctive character to the domain name, nor avoid confusing similarity”. The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s ZIPRECRUITER Mark. Therefore, the Panel finds that paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied in favor of the Complainant. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Pursuant to paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, the Respondent may establish that it has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, among other circumstances, by showing any one of the following elements: (i) that before notice of the dispute, the Respondent used or made demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain name or a name corresponding to the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or (ii) that the Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name, even if it had acquired no trade mark or service mark rights; or (iii) that the Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trade mark or service mark at issue. The overall burden of proof for establishing that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name lies with the Complainant. The Complainant has stated, and the Panel accepts, that it has not authorized the Respondent to use its ZIPRECRUITER Mark as “ziprecrulter” and the Respondent is not a licensee of the Complainant. The Complainant has also stated, and the Panel also accepts, that the Respondent is not known and has never been known as “ziprecruiter” or “ziprecrulter”. In respect of the above, the Panel is entitled to have regard to the lack of any substantive response from the Respondent and the absence of any claim to rights in the disputed domain name. In addition, the Complainant has provided as evidence a screenshot of the website to which the disputed domain name resolves (Annex 6 of the Complaint). This screenshot shows the associated website address as “ziprecruiter.co.uk/?utm_source=ziprecruiter-com-redirect”. It is therefore evident that the Respondent was, and is, aware of the Complainant and its ZIPRECRUITER Mark and does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not provided any evidence to show that it has used the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, Annex 6 of the Complaint shows that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name to divert Internet users to the Complainant’s own website. Such use does not confer any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name to the Respondent and does not serve as evidence of rights or legitimate interests (see FXCM Global Services LLC v WhoIsGuard Protected, WhoIsguard Inc. / Jenny Sohia, WIPO Case No. D2018-1111 quoting Ann Summers Limited v Domains By Proxy, LLC / Mingchun Chen, WIPO Case No. D2018-0625 and Carrefour v WhoIsGuard, Inc., WhoIsGuard Protected / Robert Jurek, Katrin Kafut, Purchasing clerk, Starship Tapes & Records, WIPO Case No. D2017-2533). The Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the burden of establishing a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name, which has not been rebutted by the Respondent and accordingly finds paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy is satisfied in favor of the Complainant. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel is satisfied that the dispute domain name has been registered in bad faith for the following reasons: (i) The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant’s ZIPRECRUITER Mark is well-known in its industry. As noted above, the Panel is also satisfied that the Respondent was, and is, aware of the Complainant and its ZIPRECRUITER Mark. This is evidenced by the facts that (a) the disputed domain name is a misspelling of the Complainant’s distinctive mark, and (b) that it redirected to the Complainant’s own website at the time of registration. (ii) The Respondent has not responded to the Complaint and so has not provided any explanation as to why it should be allowed to register a domain name containing a misspelling of the Complainant’s ZIPRECRUITER Mark. The disputed domain name appears to be a typo squatting registration which is itself evidence of a bad faith registration as is well established (see for example, Wikimedia Foundation Inc v Privacy Protect.org/Domain Tech Enterprises, WIPO Case No. 2015-1705, Moneyweek Limited v he jianyi. WIPO Case No. D2015-1700, and many others to similar effect). The Panel is also satisfied that the disputed domain name has been used in bad faith for the following reasons: (i) It is well established that a typosquatting registration registration is also evidence of use in bad faith (see for example, Redbox Automated Retail, LLC d/b/a Redbox v Milen Radumilo,WIPO Case No. D2019-1600). (ii) Section 3.1.4 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”) states that use of a domain name incorporating a trade mark by a third party to redirect Internet users to a Complainant’s (or a competitor’s) website is evidence of bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. The Complainant has no control over the disputed domain name and the website to which it resolves. While it redirected Internet users to the Complainant’s own website at the time of registration, at any time the Respondent could redirect Internet traffic to a website that is in no way associated with the Complainant (for example, either to another third party or to its own website). This creates a real or implied ongoing threat to the Complainant. (iii) Redirection of Internet users to the Complainant’s own website also reinforces the likelihood of confusion arising from the confusing similarity of the disputed domain name to the Complainant’s ZIPRECRUITER Mark. Internet users are likely to consider the disputed domain name as in some way endorsed by or connected with the Complainant, particularly taking into account the Complainant’s exclusive rights to the ZIPRECRUITER Mark and the substantial goodwill and reputation residing in those marks. (iv) At present, the website to which the disputed domain name resolves cannot be reached. However, section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 also states that passive holding may be evidence of bad faith, depending on (i) the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the Complainant’s mark, (ii) the failure of the Respondent to submit a response or to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good-faith use, (iii) the Respondent’s concealing its identity or use of false contact details (noted to be in breach of its registration agreement), and (iv) the implausibility of any good faith to which the domain name may be put. Again, the Panel notes that the Respondent failed to provide any response or evidence of actual or contemplated good-faith use. The Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to redirect to the Complainant’s own website counters any plausible argument that the Respondent intended to put the disputed domain name to any good faith use. (i) The Complainant has suggested that the Respondent is likely seeking to profit from an association with the Complainant by attracting Internet traffic and hits and possibly obtaining revenue from diverted traffic. While the Complainant has not put forward any evidence of this, the Panel is entitled to have regard to the lack of any response from the Respondent on this point. The Panel also accepts that there is an ongoing risk of the Respondent using the disputed domain name to attempt to attract, for its own commercial gain, Internet users to the Complainant’s own website. Accordingly, the Panel finds that paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy is satisfied in favor of the Complainant. 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 Andrew Brown QC
Sole Panelist
Date: February 13, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy