The Complainants are Headhunter Group PLC, Cyprus, and ООО “Хэдхантер” (Headhunter Ltd), Russian Federation, represented by Dr. Anton Sergo, “Internet and Law” legal company, Russian Federation.
The Respondent is Dana Jakupova, TOO "TALANTIZ", the Republic of Kazakhstan.
2. The Domain Name and RegistrarThe Disputed Domain Name
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 21, 2021. On June 21, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On June 22, 2021 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”).
The Center sent an email communication in both Russian and English regarding the language of the proceeding on June 23, 2021. The Complainants replied on June 24, 2021, requesting English to be the language of the proceeding. The Respondent replied on June 25, 2021, requesting Russian to be the language of the proceeding. In addition, on June 25, 2021, the Complainants sent an email to the Center, expressing its desire to submit a Russian translation of the Complaint and asking the Center to extend the deadline to July 2, 2021. On June 29, 2021, the Complainants submitted the Russian translation of the Complaint.
On June 30, 2021, the Respondent submitted an informal communication, to which the Center acknowledged receipt.
In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on July 1, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for response was July 21, 2021.
On July 19, 2021, the Respondent sent an email to the Center, requesting an extension to the response deadline to July 25, 2021. The Response was submitted to the Center on July 26, 2021.
The Center appointed Pham Nghiem Xuan Bac, Sebastian M.W. Hughes, and Taras Kyslyy as panelists in this matter on August 27, 2021. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. Each member of 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.
On July 29, 2021, the Complainants submitted an unsolicited Supplemental Filing to the Center, to which the Center acknowledged receipt.
On August 9, 2021, the Respondent also submitted an unsolicited Supplemental Filing to the Center, to which the Center acknowledged receipt.
4. Factual BackgroundThe Complainants are Headhunter Group PLC and ООО “Хэдхантер” (Headhunter Ltd), specializing in Internet recruitment and developing business services in many countries, including Russian Federation, the Republic of Kazakhstan, Ukraine, Belarus, Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia. According to the Complaint, the Complainants develop the most advanced technologies across all available platforms to help employers quickly find the perfect candidate for a job, and help job applicants find perfect positions. The Complainants now have one billion job applications and fifty-one million CVs. In 2020, the Complainants’ revenue reached RUB 8.28 billion (nearly EUR 92 million), generated from 350 thousand paying customers.
The Complainants’ “TALANTIX” project is a cloud-based system for automating work with personnel, firstly appeared in 2012 and has been launched in Russia, the Republic of Kazakhstan, Ukraine, Belarus, Azerbaijan, since June 7, 2017. Further, TALANTIX is the first customer relationship management platform for recruiting, using artificial intelligence technologies to recommend and rank the most suitable candidates in the territory of the former CIS country members (Commonwealth of Independent States).
The Complainants’ trademarks TALANTIX have been registered for goods and services in Classes 9, 35, 38, 41, and 42 in a variety of countries under a number of trademark registrations, including, but not limited to, the Russian trademark No. 656669 registered on May 17, 2018 (filing date of July 20, 2017) and the Kazakhstan trademark No. 59566 registered on April 27, 2018 (filing date of July 24, 2017).
Additionally, the Complainants are the registrants of many domain names featuring the trademarks TALANTIX, among which the notable one is
The Disputed Domain Name
The Complainants contend that each of the three elements specified in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are satisfied in the present case, as follows:
(i) The Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the trademark in which the Complainants have rights.
First, the Complainants contend that the Complainants are the registered owner of trademark registrations for TALANTIX in some jurisdictions. Besides, the Complainants submit that the Complainants are the owner of several domain names including TALANTIX trademarks.
Second, the Complainants assert that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the trademarks TALANTIX owned by the Complainants since the Disputed Domain Name incorporates the Complainants’ trademarks TALANTIX in its entirety, while the difference coming from the misspelling of the ending letter “z” instead of an “x” could not dispel any likelihood of confusion.
Finally, the Complainants submit that the addition of the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) suffix “.com” in the Disputed Domain Name is an irrelevant distinction which does not change the likelihood of confusion.
(ii) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name.
First, the Complainants contend that at the time the Disputed Domain Name was registered, the Complainants’ trademarks TALANTIX are well-known for the Russian-speaking population.
Second, the Complainants argue that the Respondent is not the right holder of TALANTIX trademarks, namely, the Respondent was not granted any license or authorization of the Complainants to use their trademarks in any manner, the Complainants have never transferred their trademarks to the Respondent and there is no affiliation between the Complainants and the Respondent. Besides, the Complainants submit that the Respondent tried to register the trademark Talantiz in The Republic of Kazakhstan with the filing date of December 14, 2018. However, the registration was denied because of the likelihood of confusion to the Complainants’ trademarks TALANTIX.
Third, the Complainants contend that the Disputed Domain Name, at the time of its registration, did not reflect the Respondent’s name, since the Respondent renamed its company from TOO "РУМО" to TOO "Talantiz" on August 16, 2017, when the Complainants’ domain name and trademark had been already known in Kazakhstan. This does not show good faith on the part of the Respondent.
Furthermore, the Complainants argue that the Respondent had actual knowledge of the Complainants’ trademarks and had the intent to trade off the reputation and fame of the Complainants’ TALANTIX trademarks by using the Disputed Domain Name. As such, the Complainants argue that the Respondent is attempting to divert consumers from Complainants’ website by using a confusingly similar domain name and providing similar content. This is not a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor is it a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Name.
Finally, the Complainants contend that the intentional misspelling by the Respondent does not constitute fair use and is the obverse of a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Name.
(iii) The Disputed Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
First, the Complainants submit that the “Talantix” project appeared in 2012 and launched in Russia, the Republic of Kazakhstan, Ukraine, Belarus, Azerbaijan, since June 7, 2017. Further, the Complainants are the registered owners of trademark registrations for TALANTIX in several jurisdictions, and several domain names including TALANTIX trademarks. Accordingly, the Complainants argue that the Complainants’ trademarks had entered the Internet before the Disputed Domain Name was registered, and the Respondent already knew the reputation and fame of the Complainants’ trademarks when it registered the Disputed Domain Name.
Second, the Complainants contend that Respondent uses the Disputed Domain Name as a competing website in the same business area with the Complainants, and therefore, the likelihood of confusion between the Disputed Domain Name and the Complainants’ trademarks will result in diversion of Internet traffic from the Complainants’ website to the Respondent’s website. As such, the Complainants argue that the Respondent attracts the Internet users for commercial gain by take advantage of the reputation of Complainants’ TALANTIX trademarks. These evidences bad faith on the part of Respondent.
Finally, the Complainants contend that Respondent’s bad faith registration of the Disputed Domain Name prevents the Complainants from registering the domain name reflecting their trademark.
With the said arguments, the Complainants request that the Disputed Domain Name be transferred to Headhunter Group PLC.
B. RespondentOn July 26, 2021, the Respondent filed a Response to the Center. In the Response, the Respondent requests the Panel to deny the Complainants’ request with the following contentions:
First, the Respondent states its history of establishment and development. Namely, the Respondent was firstly originated from a company named ТОО “РУМО”, established in 2009, however, this company was suspended after several years of operation. On 16 August 2017, the Respondent was re-registered with the new name-TALANTIZ and the new director who has over 18 years of experiences in the field of human resources management.
Second, the Respondent contends that the website under Disputed Domain Name is an online platform providing the human resources selection tools (through video interview, video greeting, testing, cases, essays, video presentations) for employers, not a customer relationship management. Further, the Respondent contends that the website under the Disputed Domain Name does not provide services for the search and selection of employees, and therefore, the Respondent’s services are different from those of the Complainants.
Third, the Respondent submits that the Respondent, TALANTIZ, has proven its fame through many projects in The Republic of Kazakhstan. The Respondent also lists some projects which it has conducted.
Fourth, the Respondent contends that it only knew about the TALANTIX domain name and trademarks of the Complainants when its trademark TALANTIZ was refused for registration on July 15, 2019 by the Trademark Office of The Republic of Kazakhstan.
For each of the three elements specified in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Respondent refutes the Complainant’s contentions as follows:
(i) The Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
First, the Respondent submits that it is the registered owner of several domain names featuring TALANTIZ and the Respondent has conscientiously verified the domain names before registering them. As such, the Respondent was unaware of the TALANTIX trademarks when registering the Disputed Domain Name.
Furthermore, the Respondent argues that the trademarks TALANTIX are not well-known when the Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name.
Second, the Respondent contends that TALANTIZ is a coined word, and thus, it is unique and distinctive. The main idea behind TALANTIZ is that the service helps to quickly select talents from candidates.
Third, the Respondent contends that the Disputed Domain Name is not confusingly similar to the Complainants’ trademarks TALANTIX based on their differences on phonetics, graphics, and as a whole.
Finally, the Respondent argues that the website under the Disputed Domain Name does not divert the traffic of the Complainants’ website “www.talantix.ru” since there is no results regarding TALANTIX when the Respondent searches the query “talantiz” on Google search and Yandex Webmaster.
(ii) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name.
First, the Respondent affirms that it did not have knowledge of the Complainants’ trademarks TALANTIX when registering the Disputed Domain Name, and therefore, the Respondent has no reason to create a confusingly similar domain name to the Complainants’ trademarks.
Second, the Respondent contends that it only knew the TALANTIX domain name and trademarks of the Complainants when its trademark TALANTIZ was refused for registration on July 15, 2019 by the Trademark Office of The Republic of Kazakhstan.
The Respondent further argues that the website under the Disputed Domain Name is not a competing website with the Complainants’ website due to the difference services thereunder. Namely, the website under the Disputed Domain Name is an online platform providing the selection tools only (through video interview, video greeting, testing, cases, essays, video presentations) for employers to select candidates, while the Complainants’ website provides online recruitment services.
Third, the Respondent contends that it is widely known under the Disputed Domain Name because of its implemented country-level projects in The Republic of Kazakhstan.
Fourth, the Respondent argues that, by using Disputed Domain Name, the Respondent does not divert potential users from the Complainants’ websites, and, accordingly, the Respondent does not derive any commercial benefit. The Respondent further contends that it does not disrupt the Complainants’ business or take advantage of the fame of the TALANTIX trademarks. Moreover, the Respondent argues that it uses the Disputed Domain Name to offer services and goods in good faith.
Finally, the Respondent reaffirms that, the Respondent has rights and legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name since (i) the service under the Disputed Domain Name and itself, respectively, are widely known in The Republic of Kazakhstan, (ii) the Respondent uses the Disputed Domain Name in good faith to offer services and goods prior to dispute; and (iii) the Respondent uses the Disputed Domain Name for a legitimate commercial or bona fide purpose with no commercial intent.
(iii) The Disputed Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
First, the Respondent contends that the Complainants’ TALANTIX trademarks were not well-known when it registered the Disputed Domain Name. The Respondent also has conscientiously verified the Disputed Domain Name before registering it. Accordingly, the Respondent argues that it did not have knowledge of the Complainant’s TALANTIX trademarks when it registered the Disputed Domain Name.
Second, the Respondent argues that the Disputed Domain Name is not confusingly similar to the Complainants’ TALANTIX trademarks.
Finally, the Respondent contends that the Respondent does not divert potential user from the Complainants’ websites, and, accordingly, the Respondent does not derive any commercial benefit. The Respondent also argues that the Respondent does not disrupt the Complainants’ business. Further, the Respondent contends that it lawfully acquired the Disputed Domain Name and uses the Disputed Domain Name in good faith, as evidenced by its implemented projects.
6. Discussion and Findings A. Procedural Issues (i) Consolidation of Multiple ComplainantsIn respect of the issue “Multiple complainants filing against a single respondent”, the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), Section 4.11.1 provides that:
“Paragraph 10(e) of the UDRP Rules grants a panel the power to consolidate multiple domain name disputes. [...] In assessing whether a complaint filed by multiple complainants may be brought against a single respondent, panels look at whether (i) the complainants have a specific common grievance against the respondent, or the respondent has engaged in common conduct that has affected the complainants in a similar fashion, and (ii) it would be equitable and procedurally efficient to permit the consolidation.”
The present proceeding involves two Complainants, namely Headhunter Group PLC, and ООО “Хэдхантер” (Headhunter Ltd), bringing a single complaint against a common Respondent.
The Panel is satisfied, based on the materials as filed, that the Complainants have specific common grievance against the Respondent as the Complainants have a common legal interest as related entities that hold and use the TALANTIX mark.
Therefore, the Panel finds that it is equitable and procedurally efficient to permit the consolidation.
(ii) Language of the ProceedingThe Complaint was filed in English. The Registrar confirmed that the language of the Registration Agreement was Russian.
As the Complaint was filed in English, the Center, in its notification dated June 23, 2021, invited the Complainants to submit either (i) satisfactory evidence of an agreement between the Complainants and the Respondent to the effect that the proceeding should be in English, or (ii) submit the Complaint translated into Russian, or (iii) a substantiated request for English to be the language of the proceeding by June 26, 2021.
On June 24, 2021, the Complainants submitted a request that English be the language of the proceeding.
On June 25, 2021, the Respondent submitted a request that Russian be the language of the proceeding. On the same day, the Complainants sent an email to the Center, expressing their desire to submit the Russian translation of the Complaint, and asking the Center to extend the deadline to July 2, 2021.
On June 29, 2021, the Complainants submitted the Complaint that had been translated into Russian.
According to paragraph 11(a) of the Rules, unless otherwise agreed by the Parties, or specified otherwise in the Registration Agreement, the language of the proceeding shall be the language of the Registration Agreement, subject to the authority of the Panels to determine otherwise, having regard to the circumstances of the administrative proceeding.
Therefore, for the purpose of issuing a Decision without any delay, while still maintaining decent comprehension of the Decision, and according to paragraph 11(a) of the Rules, which provides that “the language of the proceeding shall be the language of the Registration Agreement”, the Panel hereby decides that the language of the proceeding shall be Russian. However, as majority of panelists are not from Russian-speaking countries, the Panel shall render its decision in English, and a Russian translation of the operative sections of the Decision will be delivered to the parties for their ease of understanding.
(iii) Late Filing of the ResponseOn July 1, 2021, the Center sent an email communication to the Respondent, notifying the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings, and setting the deadline of July 21, 2021 for the Respondent to file the Response. On July 19, 2021, the Respondent sent an email to the Center, requesting an extension to the response deadline to July 25, 2021. The Response was submitted to the Center on July 26, 2021.
Paragraph 14(a) of the Rules provides that, in the event of a late response, absent exceptional circumstances, panels shall proceed to a decision based solely on the complaint.
Paragraph 14(a) of the Rules is counterbalanced by paragraph 10(b) of the Rules, which requires panels to ensure that parties are treated with equality and that each party is given a fair opportunity to present its case.
The Response was filed one day late. The Respondent did not file any submissions in support to the late filing of the Response.
In the case at hand, notwithstanding the absence of exceptional circumstances, taking into account the fact that the Response was filed before the appointment of the Panel, the Panel finds that the one-day delay in response does not defer the proceeding as well as deteriorate the Panel’s powers according to paragraph 10(b) of the Rules. Also, it does not prejudice the Complainants’ position. As such, the Panel accepts the Respondent’s late Response, and thus, will consider it for the purpose of rendering the Decision.
(iv) Supplemental FilingsOn July 29, 2021 and August 9, 2021, the Complainants and the Respondent submitted their unsolicited Supplemental Filings to the Center respectively, rebutting the arguments of each other.
Paragraph 10 of the UDRP Rules vests the panel with the authority to determine the admissibility, relevance, materiality and weight of the evidence, and also to conduct the proceedings with due expedition.
Paragraph 12 of the UDRP Rules expressly provides that it is for the panel to request, in its sole discretion, any further statements or documents from the parties it may deem necessary to decide the case.
In all such cases, panels have repeatedly affirmed that the party submitting or requesting to submit an unsolicited supplemental filing should clearly show its relevance to the case and why it was unable to provide the information contained therein in its complaint or response (e.g., owing to some “exceptional” circumstance). See section 4.6, the WIPO Overview 3.0.
In this instant case, taking into consideration that the unsolicited Supplemental Filings from both parties just repeat rebuttals of each other’s arguments without any new arguments or evidence, the Panel hereby declines these unsolicited Supplemental Filings and will not consider anything other than the Complaint, the Response, and each party’s evidence as initially submitted.
B. Identical or Confusingly SimilarThe Complainants are required to establish the two following elements: (1) that they have trademark rights, and, if so, (2) that the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to their trademark.
First, the Panel finds that the Complainants have evidenced that they have rights in and to the trademarks TALANTIX, which were registered in a number of countries. In addition, it is evidenced that the Complainants have a wide use of their TALANTIX Trademarks in providing recruitment services including in Russian-speaking countries. Of note, the Complainants owns a registration for the TALANTIX Trademarks and are providing services in The Republic of Kazakhstan, where the Respondent resides.
Second, the Disputed Domain Name is almost identical with the Complainants’ TALANTIX trademarks, in which the Complainants have exclusive rights. The only difference between the Disputed Domain Name and the TALANTIX Trademarks is the letter “z” in the Disputed Domain Name instead of the letter “x” in the TALANTIX Trademarks, both at the end of the words. In the Panel’s view, the replacement of letter “x” with the letter “z” does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the Disputed Domain Name and the TALANTIX trademarks.
Given the wide use of the trademark TALANTIX (for recruitment services by the Complainants), the Panel opines that this case appears to be a typical case of a deliberate misspelling of a trademark (so-called “typosquatting”), by omitting, adding, or substituting the order of letters of a trademark, which is guided under paragraph 1.9 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (WIPO Overview 3.0). In similar cases, numerous UDRP panels in the past have found confusing similarity to be present, see, inter alia Airlinen Ltd v. Deyan Dimitrov, Laundryheap, VenturePoint Ltd, WIPO Case No. D2019-2542; Mirova v. WhoisGuard Protected, WhoisGuard, Inc. / Brian Tranter,WIPO Case No. D2020-0142.
Finally, the Panel finds, similarly to other UDRP panels, that the addition of the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” to the Disputed Domain Name does not constitute an element as to avoid confusing similarity for the Policy purposes (see, e.g., Volkswagen AG v. Privacy Protection Services,WIPO Case No. D2012‑2066; The Coca-Cola Company v. David Jurkiewicz,WIPO Case No. DME2010-0008; Telecom Personal, S.A., v. NAMEZERO.COM, Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2001-0015; F. Hoffmann La Roche AG v. Macalve e-dominios S.A.,WIPO Case No. D2006-0451; Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows,WIPO Case No. D2000-0003).
Based on the foregoing findings, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainants’ TALANTIX trademarks, and paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is established.
C. Rights or Legitimate InterestsParagraph 4(c) of the Policy lists circumstances, in particular but without limitation, which, if found by the Panel to be proved, demonstrate the Respondent’s rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, including:
“(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 Panel finds that the Complainants have made a prima facie evidence on that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name.
The consensus of previous UDRP decisions is that while the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, once a prima facie case is made, the burden of production shifts to the Respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating his rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name (see e.g., Document Technologies, Inc. v. International Electronic Communications Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2000-0270; Julian Barnes v. Old Barn Studios Limited,WIPO Case No. D2001-0121).
Regarding paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy, the Panel finds, in light of the Complainants’ asserted facts, that no license, permission, or authorization of any kind to use the Complainants’ trademarks TALANTIX has been granted to the Respondent. There is no evidence that the Respondent holds any registered or unregistered trademark rights related to “talantix” in any jurisdiction. Thus, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights in the trademarks TALANTIX.
Besides the confusing similarity between the Disputed Domain Name and the Complainant’s TALANTIX trademarks, the Panel finds that the website under the Disputed Domain Name is an online platform where candidates/applicants can find and apply for the jobs from many third parties, which directly competes with the Complainant’s services. In this regard, the Panel rejects the Respondent’s argument that its services are different from that of the Complainant, since the services are both pertaining to recruitments, and targeting at customers being employers and potential employees.
Further, the Panel finds that (i) TALANTIX is a coined word, neither having any dictionary meaning in English, nor being transliterations of any words in Russian, the two languages that appear to be familiar to both parties, if not their mother tongue, (ii) the TALANTIX Trademarks is inherently distinctive and has been used widely by the Complainants in Russian-speaking countries before the registration of Disputed Domain Name, and (iii) the Respondent’s director has been practicing in the sector of human resources managements for more than 18 years. Hence, the Panel is of the view that the choice (and the misspelling of “z” for “x”) is not made in a fortuity, but the Respondent already knew about the Complainants and the trademarks TALANTIX when it made up its mind to choose and register the Disputed Domain Name. Further, the Respondent admits that its trademark registration in Kazakhstan was refused on the basis of the Complainant’s prior mark TALATIX, and it is evidential that the Respondent has kept using the Disputed Domain Name comprising the refused mark until now. In the Panel’s view, the use of the Disputed Domain Name in that manner is strongly indicative of Respondent’s attempt to ride on the reputation of the Complainants and its TALANTIX trademark, while ignoring the risk of infringement. Such use does not constitute a bona fide use within paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy.
Regarding paragraph 4(c)(ii) of the Policy, the Panel notes that the Respondent currently operates under the company name “TOO Talantiz”, which was renamed from “TOO РУМО” on August 16, 2017. However, given that (i) the Complaints’ trademark “TALANTIX” has been used widely in Russian-speaking countries, including Kazakhstan – where the Respondent resides, before the Respondent’s company name change to “TOO Talantiz”, (ii) the use by the Respondent of its company name and Disputed Domain Name does not constitute bona fide use under paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy as mentioned above, the Panel is of the view that any renown attributable to the Respondent is not acquired on good faith. Thus, the Panel rejects such renown (if any), and on that basis, does not consider the Respondent as commonly known within the meaning of paragraph 4(c)(ii) of the Policy.
Regarding paragraph 4(c)(iii) of the Policy, it is quite clear to the Panel that the Respondent is an entrepreneur, and it is doing business in the field of human resource management. Hence, the Panel rejects the Respondent’s argument that it is making noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Name without intent for commercial gain. The Panel also rebuts the Respondent’s contention that the Respondent, by using the Disputed Domain Name, neither diverts potential users from the Complainants’ websites, nor derives any commercial benefit, for the fact that the evidence supporting this argument, i.e., the hit list from Google search and Yandex Webmaster showing no result regarding TALANTIX when the Respondent searches for “talantiz” thereon, misses the point that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to a mark which is in the same field of services the Respondent is a professional in, i.e., he cannot reasonably disclaim knowledge of and intention to target the same.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name, and the second element under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy is established.
D. Registered and Used in Bad FaithParagraph 4(b) of the Policy identifies, in particular but without limitation, four circumstances which, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith, including:
“(i) circumstances indicating that you have registered or you have 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 trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of your documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
(ii) you have registered the 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 you have engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
(iii) you have registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) 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 above four circumstances are not exhaustive and bad faith may be found by the Panel based on an overall assessment of the case facts and circumstances.
First, the Panel opines that registration and use of the Disputed Domain Name, while having no legitimate rights and interests in it, as analyzed in Section 6.C., is an indication of bad faith in registration and use thereof.
Further, the Panel has considered the Complainant’s assertions and evidence with regard to the Respondent’s registration of the Disputed Domain Name. In this regard, the Panel finds that the Complainants’ TALANTIX trademarks have been registered in several jurisdictions around the world, including the Republic of Kazakhstan where the Respondent locates. In addition, the Complainants are one of the largest Russian companies providing Internet recruitment in many countries, including also Kazakhstan, and the “TALANTIX” project was first launched in 2012. As such, it is persuasive to the Panel that the “TALANTIX” trademarks have gained a certain reputation in the sector of human resources management, especially the recruitment services.
As analyzed in the Section 6.C. above, given the circumstances of this case, the Panel is of the view that the Respondent obviously knew about the Complainants and the TALANTIX trademarks when it registered the Disputed Domain Name. The Panel considers such registration an attempt by the Respondent as to take advantage of the Complainants’ reputation and goodwill.
In drafting this Decision, the Panel accessed the Disputed Domain Name and found that it is resolving to an online platform providing candidate-selection tools for employers and offering/advertising jobs of third parties. Since the Disputed Domain Name is almost identical with the Complainants’ TALANTIX Trademarks, the Panel takes the view that, any Internet user attempting to visit the Complainants’ website for recruitment services may end up on the web page of the Respondent. In addition, the Panel notes the fact that the Respondent keeps using the Disputed Domain Name even after its trademark is refused in Kazakhstan due to the prior mark of the Complainant. With such a view, the Panel finds that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to ride on the reputation of the Complainants and the TALANTIX trademarks, to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainants’ mark, which supports a finding of bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.
Taking into account all of the above and the available record, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name was registered and is being used by the Respondent in bad faith and the third element under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy is established.
7. DecisionFor 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
Pham Nghiem Xuan Bac
Presiding Panelist
Sebastian M.W. Hughes
Panelist
Taras Kyslyy
Panelist
Date: September 10, 2021