The Complainant is Citrix Systems, Inc., United States of America (“United States” or “U.S.”), represented by Day Pitney LLP, United States.
The Respondent is Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC, United States / Name Redacted. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 18, 2020. On May 19, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On May 20, 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 May 27, 2020, 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 May 30, 2020. 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 June 3, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was June 23, 2020. The Center received an informal email communication from a third party on June 8, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on June 24, 2020. The Center appointed Martin Schwimmer as the sole panelist in this matter on July 2, 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, Citrix Systems, Inc., has been using the trademark CITRIX (e.g., United States trademark registration no. 1685759, registered on May 5, 1992) in connection with computer goods and services since 1989. The Disputed Domain Name Since 1989, the Complainant has been a worldwide provider of computer software systems and related system services in the nature of networking and server software, desktop virtualization systems, software-as-a-service, cloud computing technologies, and mobility solutions. Currently, more than 400,000 organizations and over 100 million people use the Complainant’s products and services worldwide. The Complainant’s CITRIX trademark is the subject of numerous trademark registrations in many countries worldwide, including, but not limited to, the European Union and the United States. The Complainant’s trademark registrations in the United States for the CITRIX trademark include U.S. Reg. No. 5803584, covering goods and services in International Classes 9, 35, 37, 38, 41, 42, and 45; U.S. Reg. No. 5645864, covering goods and services in International Classes 9, 16, 25, 35, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, and 45; and U.S. Reg. No. 2614647, covering goods and services in International Classes 37 and 42. The Complainant maintains a website at “www.citrix.com”. The Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s CITRIX trademark because it incorporates the Complainant’s well-known and distinctive trademark in its entirety. The addition of the descriptive term “careers” within the Disputed Domain Name does not distinguish it from the Complainant’s trademarks, and actually increases the likelihood of confusion by luring job seekers using a common search term, and transposing how these terms appear on the Complainant’ own website (see, e.g., the Complainant’s website at “www.citrix.com/careers/americas.html”). The Complainant first became aware of the Disputed Domain Name on May 13, 2020 when two separate consumers reported incidents of fraud to the Complainant after applying to a job listing and being requested to supply protected personal information to an email address of “[…]@careers-citrix.com”. The consumers shared protected personal information with the Disputed Domain Name’s operator in email exchanges with individuals emailing from that email address. Previous UDRP panels have held CITRIX to be a famous and well-known trademark. Citrix Systems, Inc. v. Domains by Proxy, LLC / Sirishareddy Idamakanti – Sirisha Idamaknti,WIPO Case No. D2015-0017; Citrix Systems, Inc. v. WhoisProtectService.net ProtectService, Ltd. / Alexandr golounin,WIPO Case No. D2014-0250. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. Upon information and belief, the Respondent (i) does not own any trademark or service mark registrations encompassing the Disputed Domain Name, nor any variations thereof; (ii) is not commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name; and (iii) is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Name without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers. The Respondent is not using the Disputed Domain Name for any purpose other than to facilitate a fraud scheme, using a false domain name and emails displaying the Complainant’s marks to lure job seekers with fake job application materials. Previous UDRP panels have held that the use of a domain name for purposes other than to host a website can constitute bad faith, and evidence a lack of bona fide rights and/or legitimate interests in the domain name. Such purposes include sending email and phishing. Many such cases involve a respondent’s use of a domain name to send deceptive emails to obtain sensitive or confidential personal information. See Konecranes, Inc. v. James White,WIPO Case No. D2018-0861 (where the respondent generated emails impersonating the complainant’s employees to make travel arrangements with customers and vendors). The Respondent’s intended registration and use of the Disputed Domain Name was and is to mislead potential job applicants for commercial gain by profiting from the similarity between the Disputed Domain Name and the Complainant’s trademarks. Such use simply cannot give rise to any rights or legitimate interests. See Groupe Lactalis v. John Kleedofer / Privacy Protection Service INC d/b/a Privacy Protect.org,WIPO Case No. D2014-0133; Minerva S.A. v. TT Host,WIPO Case No. D2016-0384. The Respondent’s use of emails associated with the Disputed Domain Name to impersonate a Citrix employee in furtherance of a fraudulent phishing scam, illustrates the Respondent’s prior knowledge of the Complainant at the time of registration, and its bad faith intent to use the Disputed Domain Name for purposes of soliciting protected information and harming the Complainant. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings As a preliminary finding, as noted above, the Center received an informal email communication from a third party on June 8, 2020. The communication suggested that the named registrant of the Disputed Domain Name (whose name is redacted herein), was in fact a victim of identity theft. There is insufficient information in the record for the Panel to evaluate the claim, but as the communication on its face is represented as not originating with the Respondent, it will not be considered in connection with the resolution of this dispute. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant has demonstrated its ownership of the CITRIX trademark through its various registrations. It has demonstrated use of the CITRIX mark through its website at “www.citrix.com”. The Disputed Domain Name incorporates the Complainant’s well-known and distinctive trademark in its entirety. The Panel agrees with the Complainant that the addition of the descriptive term “careers” and a hyphen within the Disputed Domain Name does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the Disputed Domain Name and the Complainant’s trademarks. Accordingly, the Panel concludes that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s CITRIX trademark, and that the first element of the test is satisfied. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant has demonstrated that the Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainant and has not been authorized to use the Complainant’s trademark. The burden of production thus shifts to the Respondent to demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name, with the ultimate burden of proof remaining with the Complainant. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 2.1. The Respondent has submitted no evidence or argument. Furthermore, the use to which the Respondent has put the Disputed Domain Name, discussed in the section on bad faith below, is plainly not a good faith use. The Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith It is clear from the record that the Respondent was well aware of the Complainant and had the Complainant’s well-known CITRIX mark in mind when registering the Disputed Domain Name. There is unrebutted evidence that the Respondent utilized the Disputed Domain Name to send emails to job-seekers, which purport to originate with the Complainant. This deception is attempted in part by identifying the Complainant by its (correct) full trading name, and a comprehensive (accurate) description of the Complainant’s history and business. There is therefore no doubt that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s prior rights in its trademark, and that the Respondent sought to exploit those rights and thus, acted in bad faith. See Minerva S.A. v. Whoisguard Protected, Whoisguard, Inc. / Greyhat Services,WIPO Case No. D2016-0385 (finding that the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith by sending fraudulent emails in an attempt to create a likelihood of confusion between it and the Complainant). The Panel has read the email exchanges between the Respondent and the job seekers, and was struck by the enthusiasm and excitement of the job seekers under the false hope that the entity they believed to be the Complainant might be offering them employment. When a multinational corporation pursues a cybersquatting case, the perceived injury to that corporation may be viewed by some as small. In this dispute, the injured include people seeking jobs during an economic crisis. To victimize them by dashing hopes and stealing personal information can be characterized as being needlessly cruel. The Panel finds that the Complainant has established that the Disputed Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith, as outlined in paragraph 4(a)(iii) 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 Martin Schwimmer 1 The Respondent appears to have used the name and contact details of a third party when registering the Disputed Domain Name. In light of the potential identity theft, the Panel has redacted the Respondent’s name from this Decision. However, the Panel has attached as Annex 1 to this Decision an instruction to the Registrar regarding transfer of the Disputed Domain Name, which includes the name of the Respondent. The Panel has authorized the Center to transmit Annex 1 to the Registrar as part of the order in this proceeding, and has indicated Annex 1 to this Decision shall not be published due to the exceptional circumstances of this case. See ASOS plc. v. Name Redacted,WIPO Case No. D2017-1520.
Sole Panelist
Date: July 24, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy