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 names are:
The Disputed Domain Names The Complaint was filed in English with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 21, 2020. On August 21, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrars a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Names. On August 22, 2020 and August 23, 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 25, 2020 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrars, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint in English on August 26, 2020. On August 25, 2020, the Center transmitted an email communication to the Parties in English and Chinese regarding the language of the proceeding. On August 26, 2020, the Complainant 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 August 31, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 20, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on September 21, 2020. The Center appointed Kar Liang Soh as the sole panelist in this matter on October 7, 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 business founded in 2010 providing services to individual job seekers and commercial entities. It attracts over 7 million active job seekers and over 10,000 new companies every month. The Complainant has over 40 million job alert email subscribers. Its products and services are used by job seekers and employers around the world. It has marketing operations in the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom. The Complainant is recognized as among the fastest growing technology companies in North America and has achieved positive rankings by Deloitte, Fast 500, and Forbes. The Complainant has been using the trademark ZIPRECRUITER across a number of jurisdictions including the following: Jurisdiction Trademark No Registration Date United States 3934310 March 22, 2011 New Zealand 1036562 August 4, 2016 European Union 015070873 June 13, 2016 Canada TMA979480 August 28, 2017 Australia 1749916 February 3, 2016 The Complainant operates a website at “www.ziprecruiter.com”, which prominently features the trademark ZIPRECRUITER. The website allows employers to post jobs and manage the applicant process, as well as permits job seekers to search and/or receive alerts regarding the latest job posts. The Complainant additionally holds other domain names The trademark ZIPRECRUITER is promoted on television and social media, including Twitter, Instagram, Youtube, and Facebook. The Complainant’s mobile and tablet application is available on Google Play Store and Apple App Store. Search results for the term “ziprecruiter” on popular search engines such as Google list the Complainant and its services at the top. The Disputed Domain Names were all registered on April 14, 2020. On or about August 20, 2020, each of the Disputed Domain Names resolved to parking pages. All of the parking pages featured prominent links entitled “Online Employment Marketplace”, “Job Search”, “Jobs Hiring Near You” and the like. The parking page for The little information available about the Respondent, including the Respondent’s identity and details, was disclosed by the Registrar pursuant to this proceeding. The Respondent appears to be an individual from China. The Respondent has reportedly registered over 20,000 domain names, including The Complainant contends that: a) The Disputed Domain Names are confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights. The Complainant holds numerous trademark registrations for ZIPRECRUITER. The Disputed Domain Names are confusingly similar to the trademark ZIPRECRUITER on a side-by-side comparison due to their being misspellings of the trademark ZIPRECRUITER; b) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Names. The Respondent has not registered any trademarks for ZIPRECRUITER and there is no evidence that the Respondent holds any unregistered rights to ZIPRECRUITER. The Respondent has not received any license from the Complainant to use a domain name, which features the trademark ZIPRECRUITER. The Respondent is not known and has never been known by the trademark ZIPRECRUITER. The Respondent is not making legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Names; and c) The Disputed Domain Names were registered and are being used in bad faith. The Complainant’s earliest trademark registration for ZIPRECRUITER predates the registration of the Disputed Domain Names by at least nine years. Anyone with Internet access can find the Complainant’s trademark. The Disputed Domain Names are intentional misspellings of the trademark ZIPRECRUITER. The Respondent has engaged in a pattern of bad faith conduct, preventing owners of trademarks from reflecting their mark in a corresponding domain name, including registering seven typosquatting variations of the Complainant’s trademark. The Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Names to generate commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings 6.1 Language of Proceedings As the language of the Registration Agreement is Chinese, the default language of the proceeding is also Chinese. However, under paragraph 11(a) of the Rules, the Panel has the discretion to determine otherwise, having regard to the circumstances. In this case, the Complainant has requested that English be adopted as the language of the proceeding. Having considered the circumstances, the Panel grants the Complainant’s request. In particular, the Panel is influenced by the following circumstances: a) The Complainant is not familiar with the Chinese language; b) The Respondent appears to have a competent knowledge of English as the websites resolved from the Disputed Domain Names are entirely in English; c) The Complainant would be faced with additional costs, additionally leading to delays in the proceeding, should Chinese be adopted as the language of this proceeding; d) The Respondent has chosen not to participate in the proceeding and has not objected to the Complainant’s request for English to be the language of the proceeding; and e) The Panel is bilingual in English and Chinese and is well equipped to manage the proceeding in either or both languages. 6.2 Substantive Issues To succeed in this proceeding, the Complainant must show that the following limbs of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are established on the facts: a) The Disputed Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and b) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Names; and c) The Disputed Domain Names were registered and are being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The evidence shows that the Complainant is the owner of trademark registrations for the trademark ZIPRECRUITER and clearly has rights in it. The Panel finds the Disputed Domain Names to be obvious typographical misspellings of the mark ZIPRECRUITER: - Each of the misspellings of the mark ZIPRECRUITER does not prevent the corresponding Disputed Domain Name from being confusingly similar to the trademark ZIPRECRUITER. Therefore, the Panel holds that all the Disputed Domain Names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant has affirmed that the Respondent has not been licensed by the Complainant to use the trademark ZIPRECRUITER in the Disputed Domain Names. There is nothing in the evidence to suggest that the Respondent is commonly known by or has any rights or legitimate interests in any of the Disputed Domain Names, or that the Respondent is making a noncommercial or fair use of any of the Disputed Domain Names. On the other hand, the evidence shows that the Disputed Domain Names resolved to various parking websites, which are prominently associated with recruitment services. In the absence of any cogent explanation or response, the Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has established an unrebutted prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Names. Therefore, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Names. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith It is highly informative to the Panel that the Respondent has adopted misspellings of the trademark ZIPRECRUITER as domain names, used the trademark ZIPRECRUITER on the website resolved from at least one of the Disputed Domain Names, and focused on recruitment services on all the websites resolved from the Disputed Domain Names. The weight of the evidence points incontrovertibly to the fact that the Respondent is fully aware of the trademark ZIPRECRUITER and the Complainant’s recruitment services. The Panel finds any alternative conclusion inconceivable in the circumstances. It is basic common sense for any person considering the adoption of a domain name to conduct an Internet search to find out if it is in use in some form or another. The Panel is of the view that a search of any of the Disputed Domain Names would have readily revealed the trademark ZIPRECRUITER, the Complainant and the Complainant’s services. Despite obviously being aware of the trademark ZIPRECRUITER, the Respondent has adopted seven multiple typographical misspellings of the trademark ZIPRECRUITER in the Disputed Domain Names. The Panel is reminded of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, which outlines a non-exhaustive circumstance of bad faith registration and use. The paragraph states: “by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your 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 your website or location or of a product or service on your website or location.” The evidence strongly suggests that the Respondent has an intention to attract Internet users to the Respondent’s various websites for commercial gain. The Panel notes that the websites were designed to redirect visitors to third party commercial sites offering recruitment services, including chargeable career training services and job application forms. These must obviously have an objective of commercial gain. In the light of Disputed Domain Names evidencing the Respondent’s multiple deliberate typographical misspelling of the trademark ZIPRECRUITER, the Panel is convinced that the Respondent must have intended to use the Disputed Domain Names to create a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark ZIPRECRUITER as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the Respondent’s websites. It is only reasonable for a registrant to counter or deny false allegations of bad faith vehemently. The fact that the Respondent has chosen to remain silent encourages the Panel to draw an adverse inference that the Complainant’s allegations of the Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the Disputed Domain Names are justified and true. Having considered the circumstances as represented by the evidence submitted, the Panel finds that the Respondent has registered and is using the Disputed Domain Names in bad faith. 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, Kar Liang Soh
(collectively, the “Disputed Domain Names”)
-
-
-
-
-
-
Sole Panelist
Date: November 2, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy