The Complainant is ZipRecruiter Inc., United States of America (“United States”) , represented by SafeNames Ltd., United Kingdom.
The Respondent is Ismail Mechbal, Unik, Morocco. 2. The Domain Names and Registrar
The disputed domain names The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 11, 2020. On December 14, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Names. On December 30, 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 for the Domain Names. 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 January 7, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was January 27, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on February 2, 2021. The Center appointed Mathias Lilleengen as the sole panelist in this matter on February 12, 2021. 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. The Complainant attracts some 25 million active job seekers and 10,000 new companies each month, and has over 40 million job alert email subscribers. The Complainant has since 2010 served 120 million job seekers and over one million employers. The Complainant owns numerous trademark registrations in ZIPRECRUITER, such as United States Reg. No. 3,934,310 registered on March 22, 2011 and European Trademark Reg. No. 015070873 registered on June 13, 2016. The Complainant also owns numerous domain names that include the Complainant’s trademark, for example The Domain Names were registered on January 19, 2020. At the time of drafting the Decision, the Domain Names resolved to a blank page with the text “Dip Recruiter - The Recruitment & Marketing Platform” and a web page that request the user’s email information for log in, with the text “Tiprecruiter -The All-In-One Toolkit for Hiring”. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant provides evidence of trademark registrations, and argues that the Domain Names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark as the Domain Names are similar visually, and aurally when spoken aloud. Moreover, the Respondent’s registration of two similarly misspelt forms of the ZIPRECRUITER mark provide evidence of typo-squatting conduct. To the best of the Complainant’s knowledge, the Respondent has not any relevant registered or unregistered trademark rights. The Respondent is not authorized to use the Complainant’s trademark. The Respondent cannot establish rights in the Domain Names as it has not made any use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the Domain Names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. The Domain Name The Complainant believes the Respondent when registering the Domain Names knew or should have known of the Complainant’s trademark. The Complainant argues that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract Internet users, for commercial gain, by creating confusion with the Complainant’s trademark. The Respondent’s conduct is indicative of typosquatting. The Complainant submits that the Respondent has engaged in a pattern of registering trademark and brand-abusive domain names. Finally, the Complainant argues that it is implausible that the Respondent may use the Domain Names for any good faith purpose. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant has established that it has rights in the trademark ZIPRECRUITER. The test for confusing similarity involves a comparison between the trademark and the Domain Names. The Domain Names are visually similar and pronounced similarly. In the context of this case, the Domain Names appear as intentional misspellings of the Complainant’s trademark, see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.9. For the purpose of assessing under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, the Panel may ignore the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com”, see WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.11. The Panel finds that the Domain Names are confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant has not granted any authorization to the Respondent to register the Domain Names containing the Complainant’s trademark or otherwise make use of the Complainant’s mark. There is no evidence that the Respondent has registered the Domain Names as a trademark or acquired unregistered trademark rights. The Respondent has not filed a response in this case, but the Respondent has on October 8, 2020 sent the following short email reply to the Complainant’s cease and desist letter: “We've spent an enormous effort working on our brand and therefore cannot simply transfer our domains to your client”. The email was not accompanied with any documentation. Based on the casefile, the Panel finds that the Respondent’s use of the Domain Names is not bona fide. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Names in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Based on the casefile, it is likely that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant when the Respondent registered the Domain Names. It seems to the Panel that the Respondent has registered and used the Domain Names to attract Internet users for commercial gain, by creating confusion with the Complainant’s trademark. Furthermore, the Panel agrees with the Complainant that the Respondent’s conduct indicates typosquatting. The Complainant has also provided evidence that the Respondent has engaged in a pattern of registering other domain names that target third party trademarks. For the reasons set out above, the Panel concludes that the Domain Names were registered and are being used in bad faith, within the meaning of 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 Names Mathias Lilleengen
Sole Panelist
Date: February 16, 2021
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy