The Complainant is ZipRecruiter Inc., United States of America (the “United States”), represented by SafeNames Ltd., United Kingdom.
The Respondent is Domain Admin, Hush Whois Protection Ltd., Seychelles. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 21, 2020. On August 21, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On August 24, 2020, 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 August 25, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 14, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on September 15, 2020. The Center appointed Nicholas Smith as the sole panelist in this matter on September 22, 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, established in 2010 and based in the United States. The Complainant attracts over 7 million active job seekers and serves over 10,000 companies a month. The Complainant operates from its website at “www.ziprecruiter.com”, which has been operational since 2011. The Complainant holds a number of registered trade marks for term “ziprecruiter” (the “ZIPRECRUITER Mark” including United States trade mark registration number 3934310 registered on March 22, 2011 for services in class 42. The Complainant also holds registrations for the ZIPRECRUITER Mark in New Zealand, the European Union, Canada and Australia. The Domain Name The Complainant makes the following contentions: (i) the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s ZIPRECRUITER Mark; (ii) the Respondent has no rights nor any legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and (iii) the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant is the owner of the ZIPRECRUITER Mark having registered the ZIPRECRUITER Mark in the United States, New Zealand, the European Union, Canada and Australia. The Domain Name is confusingly similar to the ZIPRECRUITER Mark since it merely replaces the second “e” in “ziprecruiter” with an “o”, which is a classic case of typosquatting. There are no rights or legitimate interests held by the Respondent in respect of the Domain Name. The Complainant has not granted any license or authorization for the Respondent to use the ZIPRECRUITER Mark. The Respondent does not use the Domain Name for a bona fide purpose or a legitimate noncommercial use. Rather the Domain Name resolves to a page with links to advertisements targeted at the Complainant’s customers and potential customers; which does not provide the Respondent with rights or legitimate interests. The Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Given the reputation of the ZIPRECRUITER Mark, the registration of the Domain Name can only be taken as an attempt by the Respondent to gain an unfair benefit from the Complainant’s reputation. The Respondent is using the Domain Name for a pay-per-click site which amounts to bad faith use. The Respondent has also listed the Domain Name for sale for a price well in excess of any out-of-pocket costs the Respondent could have incurred with respect to the Domain Name. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar To prove this element the Complainant must have trade or service mark rights and the Domain Name must be identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade or service mark. The Complainant is the owner of the ZIPRECRUITER Mark, having registrations for the ZIPRECRUITER Mark as a trade mark in the United States and other jurisdictions. Disregarding the “.com” generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) as a necessary technical requirement of the Domain Name, the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the ZIPRECRUITER Mark since it wholly incorporates the ZIPRECRUITER Mark, other than the replacement of the second “e” with an “o” which creates a minor misspelling that would be easy for an Internet user to overlook. Consequently, the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests To succeed on this element, a complainant must make out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If such a prima facie case is made out, then the burden of production shifts to the respondent to demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy enumerates several ways in which a respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a domain name: “Any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be proved based on its evaluation of all evidence presented, shall demonstrate your rights or legitimate interests to the domain name for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii): (i) before any notice to you of the dispute, your 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) you (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the domain name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or (iii) you are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.” The Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainant in any way. The Respondent has not been authorized by the Complainant to register or use the Domain Name or to seek the registration of any domain name incorporating the ZIPRECRUITER Mark or a mark similar to the ZIPRECRUITER Mark. There is no evidence that the Respondent is commonly known by the Domain Name or any similar name. There is no evidence that the Respondent has used or made demonstrable preparations to use the Domain Name in connection with a legitimate noncommercial fair use or a bona fide offering of goods and services; the use of the Domain Name for what appears to be a parking page with pay-per-click links related to the Complainant’s recruitment and employment services does not amount to use for a bona fide offering of goods and services. The Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. The Respondent has had the opportunity to put on evidence of its rights or legitimate interests, including submissions as to why its conduct amounts to a right or legitimate interest in the Domain Name under the Policy. In the absence of such a Response, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith For the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith: (i) circumstances indicating that the Respondent has registered or has acquired the Domain Name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the Domain Name registration to the Complainant who is the owner of the trade mark or service mark or to a competitor of the Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of its documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the Domain Name; or (ii) the Respondent has registered the Domain Name in order to prevent the owner of the trade mark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that the Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or (iii) the Respondent has registered the Domain Name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or (iv) by using the Domain Name, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on the Respondent’s website or location. (Policy, paragraph 4(b)). The Panel finds that the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant and its reputation in the ZIPRECRUITER Mark at the time the Respondent acquired the Domain Name. The ZIPRECRUITER Mark consists of a coined word that had some reputation online arising from its use by the Complainant at the date of registration. The Respondent has provided no explanation, and none is immediately obvious, why an entity would register a domain name containing an obvious misspelling of the ZIPRECRUITER Mark and redirect it to a website containing links referring to the Complainant and its services unless there was an awareness of and an intention to create a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant and its ZIPRECRUITER Mark. In these circumstances, the Respondent’s conduct in registering the Domain Name when it was aware of the Complainant’s rights and lacked rights or legitimate interests of its own amounts to registration in bad faith. The Respondent’s Website offers what appear to be pay-per-click links to entities offering employment and recruitment services, some of which are in direct competition with the Complainant. In these circumstances where the Respondent has offered no plausible explanation for the registration of the Domain Name the Panel finds that that the Respondent is using the Domain Name to intentionally attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the ZIPRECRUITER Mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s Website. As such the Panel finds that the Domain Name is being used in bad faith. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith under 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 Domain Name, Nicholas Smith
Sole Panelist
Date: September 24, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy