The Complainant is ZipRecruiter Inc., United States of America (“United States”), represented by SafeNames Ltd., United Kingdom.
The Respondent is 杨智超 (Zhi Chao Yang), China. 2. The Domain Names and Registrars
The disputed domain names The disputed domain names The disputed domain names The Complaint was filed in English with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 30, 2020. On July 30, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrars a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On July 31, 2020, the Registrars transmitted by email to the Center their verification responses disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain names which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on August 4, 2020 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. On August 4, 2020, the Center sent a communication to the Parties, in English and Chinese, regarding the language of the proceeding. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint in English wherein it requested English be the language of the proceeding on August 7, 2020. 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 August 14, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 3, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on September 4, 2020. The Center appointed Rachel Tan as the sole panelist in this matter on September 17, 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, which provides services for both individuals and commercial entities. The Complainant reported that it has attracted over 10,000 new companies and seven million active job seekers every month. It currently has marketing operations in the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom. The Complainant has used its ZIPRECRUITER mark within the global marketplace. The Complainant has established social media presence and used the ZIPRECRUITER mark to promote its services. The Complainant owns trade mark registrations for its ZIPRECRUITER mark across different jurisdictions, including in the United States, European Union and Canada that solely incorporate the term “Ziprecruiter”, namely, United States Registration No. 3934310 registered on March 22, 2011, in class 42; European Union Registration No. 015070873 registered on June 13, 2016 in classes 9, 36, 41 and 42; and Canada Registration No. TMA979480 registered on August 28, 2017, in classes 9, 41 and 42. The Complainant features the logo as part of the promotion of its web-based platform located at “www.ziprecruiter.com”. Its web-based platform is the foundation of its business which allows employers to post jobs and manage the application process and permit job seekers to search and/or receive alerts regarding the latest job posts. It owns a range of domain names in country-code Top-Level Domains (“ccTLD”) incorporating the ZIPRECRUITER mark, including The Respondent is 杨智超 (Zhi Chao Yang), China. The disputed domain names were registered on April 14, 2020 and resolve to parked pages comprising pay-per-click advertising links that divert Internet users to various recruitment-related websites. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to its ZIPRECRUITER marks. Each of the disputed domain names contain one substituted or additional letter within/to the term “Ziprecruiter” which are confusingly similar to the relevant ZIPRECRUITER mark for purposes of the first element. The generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” should be disregarded as this is a standard registration requirement. The Complainant further alleges that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. The Respondent has no connection nor affiliation with the Complainant and has not received a license nor consent to use the ZIPRECRUITER mark in any way. The Respondent has not used, nor prepared to use, the disputed domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. All of the disputed domain names resolves to parked pages comprising pay-per-click advertising links that redirect Internet users to various recruitment-related sites that compete with the Complainant’s offerings. The Respondent is not known, nor has ever been known as “Ziprecruiter”. There is no plausible reason for the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain names other than to profit from the goodwill of the “Ziprecruiter” brand. The Complainant finally asserts that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith. The Complainant’s earliest ZIPRECRUITER trade mark registration predates the registration of the disputed domain names by over nine years. Each of the disputed domain names comprise intentional misspellings of the Complainant’s distinctive ZIPRECRUITER mark. The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s cease and desist request. The Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s ZIPRECRUITER mark. The Respondent’s registrations are clearly intended to catch and redirect Internet users, who are evidently seeking the Complainant’s goods and services, to competing sites in order to generate pay-per-click revenue. The Respondent has engaged in a pattern of bad faith registrations, preventing the Complainant and other third parties from reflecting their marks. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings 6.1 Language of the Proceeding Initially, the Panel must address the language of the proceeding. Paragraph 11(a) of the Rules provides that the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the Registration Agreement unless otherwise agreed by the parties, subject to the authority of the panel to determine otherwise, having regard to the circumstances of the administrative proceeding. The panel may choose to write a decision in either language, or request translation of either party’s submissions. In this case, the Registrars have confirmed to the Center that the language of the Registration Agreements is Chinese. However, the Complainant has requested that English be adopted as the language of the proceeding for the reasons summarized below: (a) The Complainant and its representatives are not familiar with the Chinese language; (b) The Complainant supports this request by drawing on evidence which suggests the Respondent understands English; (c) The Respondent has registered a number of generic English-language word domain names, such as (d) All of the disputed domain names resolve to webpages comprising English-language words and phrases such as “Online Employment Marketplace” and “Job Search”; (e) Previous UDRP panels have concluded that the Respondent has sufficient familiarity with English to the extent that it is not prejudicial to adopt English as the language of the proceeding, for instance, Sodexo v. 杨智超 (Zhi Chao Yang),WIPO Case No. D2020-1171; (f) Requiring the Complainant to translate the Complaint into Chinese would create an undue burden and delay; and (g) Previous UDRP panels have, in similar circumstances, found that accepting a complaint as filed would not cause unfairness to either party. It is established practice to take paragraphs 10(b) and (c) of the Rules into consideration for the purpose of determining the language of the proceeding, in order to ensure fairness to the parties and the maintenance of an inexpensive and expeditious avenue for resolving domain name disputes. Language requirements should not lead to undue burdens being placed on the parties and undue delay to the proceeding. The Panel having considered the circumstances finds that English shall be the language of this proceeding. The reasons are set out below. (a) The Complainant is a company based in the United States. Requiring the Complainant to submit documents in Chinese would lead to delay and cause the Complainant to incur translation expenses; (b) The Respondent’s choice of English words for the disputed domain names and the webpages resolved indicates some familiarity with the English language; (c) Even if the Respondent does not possess a sufficient command of English to understand the Complaint, there were ample opportunities for the Respondent to raise an objection. The Center notified the Parties in English and Chinese of the Complainant’s request for English to be the language of the proceeding, but the Respondent did not protest against this request; and (d) Although the Center sent the notification of the Complaint in English and Chinese, the Respondent has failed to participate in the proceeding and has been notified of its default. (f) The Complaint has been submitted in English. No foreseeable procedural benefit may be served by requiring Chinese to be used. On the other hand, the proceeding may proceed expeditiously in English. 6.2 Substantive Issues A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has adduced evidence to demonstrate its established rights in the ZIPRECRUITER mark. The Panel notes each of the disputed domain names either contain one substituted or additional letter within/to the mark ZIPRECRUITER. In cases where a domain name consists of a common, obvious, or intentional misspelling of a trade mark, the domain name will normally be considered confusingly similar to the relevant mark for purposes of UDRP standing. See section 1.9 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”); Mediarex Enterprises Limited v. Yong Woon Chin, Webolutions,WIPO Case No. DCO2020-0014. Lastly, it is permissible for the Panel to ignore gTLD suffix, in this case “.com”. See section 1.11.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0. Accordingly, the Complainant has satisfied the first element under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests In circumstances where the Complainant possesses exclusive rights to the ZIPRECRUITER trade mark, whereas the Respondent seems to have no trade mark rights, the Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names, and the burden of production shifts to the Respondent. See section 2.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0. The Respondent has not provided evidence of a legitimate use of the disputed domain names or reasons to justify the choice of the term “Ziprecruiter”. Further, there is no indication to show that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain names or otherwise has rights or legitimate interests in it. In addition, the Complainant has not granted the Respondent a license or authorization to use the Complainant’s ZIPRECRUITER trade mark or register the disputed domain names. For these reasons, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Complainant’s ZIPRECRUITER trade mark has been registered in numerous jurisdictions. The disputed domain names were registered well after the registration of the Complainant’s ZIPRECRUITER trade mark. Through extensive use and advertising, the Complainant’s ZIPRECRUITER trade mark is known throughout the United States. Moreover, the term “Ziprecruiter” is distinctive. Search results using the key word “Ziprecruiter” on the Baidu and Google search engines direct Internet users to the Complainant and its services, which indicates that an exclusive connection between the ZIPRECRUITER trade mark and the Complainant has been established. The Respondent, who is apparently located in China, would have easily become aware of the Complainant and the ZIPRECRUITER trade mark through a quick and simple Internet search. As such, the Respondent either knew or should have known of the Complainant’s ZIPRECRUITER trade mark when registering the disputed domain names or has exercised “the kind of willful blindness that numerous panels have held support a finding of bad faith”. See eBay Inc. v. Renbu Bai,WIPO Case No. D2014-1693; Barclays Bank PLC v. Andrew Barnes,WIPO Case No. D2011-0874. Section 3.1.4 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 states that “mere registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar (particularly domain names comprising typos or incorporating the mark plus a descriptive term) to a famous or widely-known trade mark by an unaffiliated entity can by itself create a presumption of bad faith”. In this case, the disputed domain names are misspelling of the widely-known ZIPRECRUITER trade mark and are confusingly similar to such mark, meaning that bad faith registration of the disputed domain names can be presumed. Section 3.5 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 states that “Particularly with respect to ‘automatically’ generated pay-per-click links, panels have held that a respondent cannot disclaim responsibility for content appearing on the website associated with its domain name (nor would such links ipso facto vest the respondent with rights or legitimate interests).” The Panel notes that the disputed domain names resolve to parked pages comprising pay-per-click advertising links that divert Internet users to various recruitment-related sites. The Panel finds the use of confusingly similar disputed domain names to lure Internet users to websites hosting links to providers of competing products or services is evidence of bad faith. See Sodexo v. 杨智超 (Zhi Chao Yang), supra. The Respondent has kept silent in the face of the Complainant’s allegations of bad faith. Taking into account these circumstances, the Panel finds that the Respondent must have known of the Complainant before registering the disputed domain names and, considering the Respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interests, and by using the disputed domain names for websites displaying pay-per-click advertising links that divert Internet users to various recruitment-related sites, the Panel is led to conclude that the disputed domain names were registered and is being used in bad faith. Therefore, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the third element under 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 names Rachel Tan
Sole Panelist
Date: October 2, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy