The Complainant is ZipRecruiter Inc., United States of America (“United States”), represented by SafeNames Ltd., United Kingdom.
The Respondent is Cui Huaying, Cuihuaying, 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 February 24, 2020. On the same day, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On February 25, 2020, 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 February 27, 2020 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. On the same day, the Center also sent a communication to the Parties, in English and Chinese, regarding the language of the proceeding. On February 28, 2020, the Complainant filed an amended Complaint in English and confirmed its request that English be the language of the proceeding. 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 in English and Chinese of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on March 4, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 24, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 27, 2020. The Center appointed Matthew Kennedy as the sole panelist in this matter on April 3, 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 online recruitment company founded in 2010. It currently has marketing operations in the United States, the United Kingdom and Canada. The Complainant holds trademark registrations for ZIPRECRUITER in multiple jurisdictions, including United States trademark registration number 3934310, registered on March 22, 2011, specifying certain computer services in class 42; European Union trademark registration number 015070873, registered on June 13, 2016, specifying goods and services in classes 9, 36, 41 and 42; and Canadian trademark registration number TMA979480 registered on August 28, 2017, specifying goods and services in classes 9, 41 and 42. These trademark registrations remain current. The Complainant has also registered the domain name The Respondent is an individual resident in China. The Respondent appears to have acquired the registration of the disputed domain name no earlier than January 27, 2020. The disputed domain name was created on October 24, 2014. The disputed domain name resolves to a webpage displaying Pay-Per-Click (“PPC”) links, most of which refer to jobs and some of which resolve to the website of a competitor of the Complainant. The Complainant sent a cease-and-desist letter on January 27, 2020 to the person who was listed in the public WhoIs database at that time as the disputed domain name registrant. According to evidence provided by the Complainant, that person was found by at least five UDRP panels to have registered and been using domain names in bad faith, each of them containing an obvious misspelling of a trademark owned by a third party. The disputed domain name appears to have been transferred to the Respondent after the Complainant sent its cease-and-desist letter on January 27, 2020, but before the Registrar confirmed the lock status of the disputed domain name on February 25, 2020. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s ZIPRECRUITER trademark. The Respondent has misspelt that trademark by changing the first “i” to an “e”. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not received any license from the Complainant to use a domain name which features the ZIPRECRUITER trademark. The Respondent has deliberately used that trademark to create an impression of association with the Complainant, in order to earn revenue generated from redirections. The Respondent is not known, nor has he ever been known as Ziprecruiter. The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant’s earliest trademark registration predates the creation date of the disputed domain name by at least three years. Searches for the term “ziprecruiter” in popular search engines such as Googlelist the Complainant’s brand and services as the first result. The Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to redirect to a PPC links page is an indication of bad faith use. This is particularly so where the Respondent presumably attracts commercial gain through redirecting traffic to third party websites. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complaint. 6. Discussion and Findings 6.1. Language of the Proceeding Paragraph 11(a) of the Rules provides that “unless otherwise agreed by the Parties, or specified otherwise in the Registration Agreement, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the Registration Agreement, subject to the authority of the Panel to determine otherwise, having regard to the circumstances of the administrative proceeding”. The Registrar confirmed that the Registration Agreement for the disputed domain name is in Chinese. The Complainant requests that the language of the proceeding be English. Its main arguments are that the Complainant does not understand Chinese, that all the PPC links displayed on the website associated with the disputed domain name are in English and that translation of the Complaint would create unnecessary costs and delay. Paragraph 10(b) and (c) of the Rules requires the Panel to ensure that the Parties are treated with equality, that each Party is given a fair opportunity to present its case and that the administrative proceeding take place with due expedition. Prior UDRP panels have decided that the choice of language of the proceeding should not create an undue burden for the Parties. See, for example, Solvay S.A. v. Hyun-Jun Shin,WIPO Case No. D2006-0593; Whirlpool Corporation, Whirlpool Properties, Inc. v. Hui’erpu (HK) electrical appliance co. ltd.,WIPO Case No. D2008-0293. The Panel observes that in this proceeding the Complaint was filed in English. The Respondent has not commented on the language of the proceeding, filed a Response or otherwise expressed any interest in participating in this proceeding despite having received the notice from the Center in English and Chinese. Therefore, the Panel considers that requiring the Complainant to translate the Complaint into Chinese would create an undue burden and delay, whereas accepting the Complaint as filed and rendering this decision in English will not cause unfairness to either party. Having considered all the circumstances above, the Panel determines under paragraph 11(a) of the Rules that the language of this proceeding is English. The Panel would have accepted a Response in Chinese, but none was filed. 6.2 Substantive Issues Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy provides that a complainant must prove each of the following elements: (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. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar Based on the evidence submitted, the Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the ZIPRECRUITER mark. The disputed domain name incorporates an obvious misspelling of the ZIPRECRUITER mark, as it is identical to that mark except for the substitution of an “e” for the first “i”. This is an example of a practice known as “typosquatting”. The Panel does not consider this minor typographical difference capable of dispelling confusing similarity with the Complainant’s trademark. See Wachovia Corporation v. Peter Carrington,WIPO Case No. D2002-0775. The disputed domain name also includes a generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) suffix (“.com”), which is a technical requirement of domain name registration. A gTLD suffix may be disregarded in the comparison between a domain name and a trademark for the purposes of the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy unless it has some impact beyond its technical function, which is not the case here. Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights. The Complainant has satisfied the first element in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy sets out the following circumstances which, without limitation, if found by the Panel, shall demonstrate that the respondent has rights to, or legitimate interests in, a disputed domain name, for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy: (i) before any notice to [the respondent] of the dispute, [the respondent’s] use of, or 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) [the respondent] (as an individual, business, or other organization) [has] been commonly known by the [disputed] domain name, even if [the respondent has] acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or (iii) [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 trademark or service mark at issue. As regards the first circumstance set out above, the operative element of the disputed domain name is an obvious misspelling of the Complainant’s ZIPRECRUITER trademark and is, in its entirety, an obvious misspelling of the Complainant’s domain name. The disputed domain name resolves to a webpage that displays only PPC links, some of which resolve to the website of the Complainant’s competitor. This is not a use of the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services within the terms of paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy. As regards the second circumstance, the Registrar’s verification email indicates that the Respondent’s name is “Cui Huaying, Cuihuaying”, not “zeprecruiter”. There is no evidence that the Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name within the terms of paragraph 4(c)(ii) of the Policy. As regards the third circumstance, the disputed domain name resolves to a webpage displaying PPC links for the commercial gain of the Respondent or the operators of the linked websites, or both. That is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use within the terms of paragraph 4(c)(iii) of the Policy. In view of the above circumstances, the Panel considers that the Complainant has made a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Respondent did not rebut that prima facie case because he did not respond to the Complaint. Therefore, based on the record of this proceeding, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Complainant has satisfied the second element in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides that certain circumstances, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith. The fourth circumstance is as follows: “(iv) by using the [disputed] domain name, [the Respondent has] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [the Respondent’s] web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [the Respondent’s] web site or location or of a product or service on [the Respondent’s] web site or location.” The disputed domain name was created in 2014, years after the Complainant acquired its registered trademark rights in ZIPRECUITER in the United States. Moreover, the disputed domain name appears to have been acquired by the Respondent in 2020, years after the Complainant acquired its registered trademark rights in ZIPRECRUITER in the United States, the European Union and Canada. The operative element of the disputed domain name is an obvious misspelling of the Complainant’s ZIPRECRUITER trademark. The disputed domain name has no apparent meaning other than as an approximation of the Complainant’s trademark and domain name. This all gives the Panel reason to find that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith. The disputed domain name is used to attract Internet users who misspell the Complainant’s domain name in an Internet browser by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s ZIPRECRUITER trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the webpage to which the disputed domain name resolves. Some of the PPC links displayed on that webpage resolve to the website of the Complainant’s competitor. This use is intentional and for the commercial gain of the Respondent, or the operators of the linked websites, or both. In each of these scenarios, the facts fall within the circumstance described in paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. See Express Scripts, Inc. v. Windgather Investments Ltd. / Mr. Cartwright,WIPO Case No. D2007-0267. Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant has satisfied the third element in paragraph 4(a) of 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 Matthew Kennedy
Sole Panelist
Date: April 7, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy