Complainant is LinkedIn Corporation, United States of America (“United States”), represented by The GigaLaw Firm, Douglas M. Isenberg, Attorney at Law, LLC, United States
Respondent is Privacydotlink Customer 305682 / Gary Sandor, United States. 2. The Domain Nameand Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 22, 2021. On April 22, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On April 23, 2021, 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 Complainant on April 27, 2021, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on April 27, 2021. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to 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 April 28, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was notified as May 18, 2021. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Parties of Respondent’s default on May 21, 2021. Due to an apparent issue with the notification of Complaint, on May 27, 2021, the Center granted Respondent a five-day period in which to indicate whether it wished to participate in this proceeding. Respondent did not submit any response. The Center appointed Ingrīda Kariņa-Bērziņa as the sole panelist in this matter on June 8, 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 Complainant operates one of the world’s largest professional networks on the Internet. It has its headquarters in California, United States. Complainant is the proprietor of numerous registrations for its LINKEDIN mark in jurisdictions around the world, including the following: - United States Trademark No. 3074241 for LINKEDIN (word mark), registered on March 28, 2006 for services in class 35, claiming a date of first use of May 5, 2003; - United States Trademark No. 3971644 for LINKEDIN (device mark), registered on May 31, 2011 for services in class 45, claiming a date of first use of May 5, 2005. Complainant operates its primary business website at “www.linkedin.com”, which it registered on November 2, 2002. The disputed domain name was registered on May 18, 2005. The record contains evidence that the disputed domain name resolved to a rotating number of third-party websites flagged as “suspicious” or “risky” by McAfee Web Advisor. When visited by the Panel, the disputed domain name resolved to a parking page featuring pay-per-click links including keywords such as “recruitment” and “linkedin.” 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Complainant’s contentions may be summarized as follows: Under the first element, Complainant states that it serves 740 million users in 200 countries. Prior to its 2016 acquisition by Microsoft, Complainant’s shares were traded on the New York Stock Exchange. Complainant has more than 15,900 employees in 33 offices around the world and operates websites in 24 languages. According to website ranking system Alexa, Complainant’s website is the 50th most popular website in the world. Complainant is the owner of at least 235 registrations in at least 62 jurisdictions that consist of or include the mark LINKEDIN. The disputed domain name contains the LINKEDIN mark in its entirety, simply transposing the letters “k” and “e”, in a case of typosquatting. Under the second element, Complainant states that it has never granted permission to Respondent to register or use the LINKEDIN mark in any way. The disputed domain name is being used in connection with a rotating number of third-party websites identified as “suspicious” and “risky.” It is not being used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Under the third element, Complainant states that, due to the global reach and popularity of Complainant’s services under the LINKEDIN mark, Respondent’s action of typosquatting establishes bad faith. Complainant’s mark was famous or well-known at the time that the disputed domain name was created in 2005, being used in relation to its services for more than 4.2 million individuals and 250,000 businesses at that time. The use of the disputed domain name in connection with the third-party websites constitutes bad faith. Additionally, Complainant states that Respondent is a repeat cybersquatter with at least one previous adverse decision under the Policy (Carvana, LLC v. Privacydotlink Customer 2659160 / Gary Sandor,WIPO Case No. DCO2020-0056). Accordingly, Respondent has demonstrated a pattern of bad-faith conduct. Complainant requests transfer of the disputed domain name. B. Respondent Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Paragraph 4(a) of the UDRP requires Complainant to make out all three of the following: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and (ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and (iii) Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. Under paragraph 15(a) of the Rules, “[a] Panel shall decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.” A. Identical or Confusingly Similar Complainant has provided evidence establishing that it has trademark rights in the LINKEDIN mark through registrations in the United States and numerous other jurisdictions. Complainant thereby satisfies the threshold requirement of having trademark rights for purposes of standing to file a UDRP case. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.2.1. In comparing Complainant’s LINKEDIN mark with the disputed domain name, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark. The disputed domain name consists of an obvious misspelling of Complainant’s mark. It is the consensus view of UDRP panels that, in such cases, Complainant has standing to bring a case because Complainant’s mark is sufficiently recognizable within the disputed domain name. See, for example, Wachovia Corporation v. Peter Carrington,WIPO Case No. D2002-0775; LinkedIn Corporation v. Daphne Reynolds,WIPO Case No. D2015-1679. It is the well-established view of UDRP panels that the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.org” is viewed as a standard registration requirement and as such is disregarded under the first element confusing similarity test (see WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.11.1, and cases cited thereunder). Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has established the first element under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Pursuant to paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, a respondent may establish rights to or legitimate interests in a domain name by demonstrating any of the following: (i) before any notice to it of the dispute, Respondent’s use of, or demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain name or a name corresponding to the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or (ii) Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name, even if it has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or (iii) Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue. The circumstances stated in the Complaint, the Amended Complaint, and evidence in support set forth in the annexes thereto indicate that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Panel finds that the evidence submitted by Complainant establishes a prima facie case that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Pursuant to WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1, and cases thereunder, where Complainant makes out a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to Respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent, in failing to file a Response, has not proved rights or legitimate interests. There is no evidence that Respondent is known by the disputed domain name. Rather, the disputed domain name was used to redirect to third-party websites and for a pay-per-click website with no evidence of any effort to mitigate an inference of targeting Complainant. It is well-established that such use does not establish rights or legitimate interests. See, e.g., Harpo, Inc. and Oprah’s Farm, LLC v. Robert McDaniel,WIPO Case No. D2013-0585, and The Knot, Inc. v. In Knot We Trust Ltd,WIPO Case No. D2006-0350, Get Away Today.com., Inc. v. Warren Gilbert,WIPO Case No. DCO2010-0021. See also WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.4, and cases cited thereunder. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has established the second element under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides that the following circumstances, “in particular but without limitation”, are evidence of the registration and use of a disputed domain name in bad faith: (i) circumstances indicating that Respondent has registered or has acquired the disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to Complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or (ii) Respondent has registered the disputed domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or (iii) Respondent has registered the disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or (iv) by using the disputed domain name, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on Respondent’s website or location. The Panel finds that Complainant has demonstrated Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name. Complainant has provided evidence of unregistered trademark rights that predate the registration of the disputed domain name. Complainant contends, and Respondent has not denied, that the LINKEDIN mark was in use for several years before the registration of the disputed domain name, and further that the mark was famous or well-known by that time. (See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.3.) The disputed domain name is a deliberate misspelling of Complainant’s LINKEDIN mark, indicating bad faith on the part of Respondent. The use of the disputed domain name to redirect to third-party websites and to pay-per-click websites with keywords related to Complainant and its industry is further evidence of bad faith. Respondent has provided no evidence of actual or contemplated good-faith use of the disputed domain name and the Panel does not find any such use plausible. Under similar circumstances, previous UDRP panels have found bad faith. See, for instance, Shangri-La International Hotel Management Limited v. NetIncome Ventures Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2006-1315; Villeroy & Boch AG v. Mario Pingerna,WIPO Case No. D2007-1912. The Panel therefore finds that Complainant has established 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 name Ingrīda Kariņa-Bērziņa
Sole Panelist
Date: June 22, 2021
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy