The Complainant is ZipRecruiter Inc., United States of America (“United States”), represented by SafeNames Ltd., United Kingdom.
The Respondent is Privacy Service Provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf, Iceland / Carolina Rodrigues, Fundacion Comercio Electronico, Panama.
2. The Domain Name and RegistrarThe disputed domain name
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 16, 2021. On December 17, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On December 17, 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 the Complainant on December 20, 2021 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on December 21, 2021.
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 of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on December 27, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was January 16, 2022. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on January 18, 2022.
The Center appointed Halvor Manshaus as the sole panelist in this matter on January 30, 2022. 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 BackgroundThe Complainant is a well-known American online recruitment company, providing services for both individuals and commercial entities. It was founded in 2010, and today the Complainant’s web-based platform is the foundation of its business, allowing employers to post jobs and manage applications and job seekers to search for and receive alerts regarding the latest posts. The Complainant has received recognition as one of the fastest-growing technology companies in North America and as one of the most innovative companies in the world within the enterprise sector.
The Complainant owns trademark registrations for the word mark ZIPRECRUITER in the United States (registration no. 3934310), registered on March 22, 2011 for international class 42, the European Union (registration no. 015070873), registered on June 13, 2016 for international classes 9, 36, 41 and 42, and Canada (registratoin no. TMA979480), registered on August 28, 2017 for international classes 9, 41 and 42.
Additionally, the Complainant owns domain names comprising its trademark, inter alia,
The Respondent Carolina Rodrigues, Fundacion Comercio Electronico, Panama registered the disputed domain name through a privacy service, Privacy Service Provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf. The Respondent is identified as the owner of the disputed domain name
The Complainant’s arguments can be summarized as follows:
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark as it incorporates the Complainant’s ZIPRECRUITER mark clearly and exactly, only followed by the generic term “login”. Additionally, the combination of the Complainant’s trademark ZIPRECRUITER and the generic term “login” gives Internet users the false impression that the disputed domain name is connected to the legitimate services of the Complainant. The addition of the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” extension in the disputed domain name should be disregarded, as this is a standard registration requirement.
The Complainant argues that the Respondent lacks a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. As the disputed domain name has been used to redirect Internet users to unconnected and seemingly random commercial websites, the Complainant submits that the Respondent has not used, nor prepared to use, the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. In some instances, the redirected websites attempt to download, presumably malicious, files to the Internet users’ devices. Further, the Complainant submits that the Respondent is not known, nor has ever been known, as “ziprecruiter” or “ziprecruiterlogin”. Additionally, the Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name without intent for commercial gain to mislead consumers or to tarnish the ZIPRECRUITER mark as Internet users are redirected to unrelated commercial sites.
The Complainant contends that the Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain names in bad faith. The Complainant submits that the Respondent knew or should have known of the Complainant’s ZIPRECRUITER mark at the time of registration of the disputed domain because the ZIPRECRUITER trademark registration predates the disputed domain name’s registration by more than 10 years. Additionally, the Respondent’s choice to add “login” to the ZIPRECRUITER mark and the lack of a response to the Complainant’s cease and desist letter provides further evidence of bad faith.
The Complainant submits that the Respondent intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s ZIPRECRUITER mark evidence of bad faith. The Complainant further submits that the use of the disputed domain name containing the ZIPRECRUITER trademark, directing users to random commercial websites, reflects the Respondent’s intention to attract Internet users, for commercial gain, by creating confusion with the Complainant’s mark. The Complainant also submits that the disputed domain name has also been used to redirect Internet users to sites which attempt to download, presumably malicious, files to their devices. Such conduct presents a threat to Internet users seeking the Complainant’s services.
Moreover, the Complainant submits that the Respondent has engaged in a pattern of bad faith conduct, preventing the trademark owners from reflecting their marks in corresponding domain names, which mounts to clear evidence of the Respondent’s bad faith.
B. RespondentThe Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and FindingsThe Complainant has, in accordance with paragraph 4(i) of the Policy, requested that the disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant.
In accordance with paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, in order to succeed in this proceeding and obtain the transfer of the disputed domain name, the Complainant must establish that each of the three following elements is satisfied for the disputed domain name:
(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
Pursuant to paragraph 15(a) of the Rules, the Panel shall decide the Complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, the Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable. Moreover, in accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, if a party, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, does not comply with any provision of, or requirement under, the Rules of any request from the Panel, the Panel shall draw such inferences therefrom, as it deems appropriate.
On the basis of the evidence introduced by the Complainant and in particular with regard to the content of the relevant provisions of the Policy, (paragraphs 4(a), (b), (c)), the Panel concludes as follows:
A. Identical or Confusingly SimilarBased on the evidence submitted by the Complainant, describing the Complainant’s trademark registrations and associated business, the Panel finds that the Complainant owns rights to the trademark ZIPRECRUITER in several jurisdictions.
The disputed domain name,
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirement under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
B. Rights or Legitimate InterestsIn the Panel’s view, the presented evidence referred to by the Complainant is sufficient to establish prima facie that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. As held by the Panel in Ticketmaster Corporation v. Global Access,
WIPO Case No. D2007-1921, the Respondent carries the burden of demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name when such prima facie case is made by the Complainant.
The Respondent has not replied to the Complainant’s contentions. The Panel has not been presented with, or otherwise discovered, any evidence showing: (i) that the Respondent has received a license or other permission to use the Complainant’s trademark or any domain name incorporating or simulating this mark; (ii) that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name; (iii) that the Respondent has acquired trademark or service mark rights to use the disputed domain name; (iv) that the Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name; or (v) that the Respondent has used or prepared to use the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or service.
The disputed domain name redirects Internet users to a rotating series of third-party commercial websites. As held in Association des Centres Distributeurs E. Leclerc - A.C.D. Lec v. Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot / Wu Yu,
WIPO Case No. D2021-2017, the Panel finds that such use cannot qualify as demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
The Panel, therefore, concludes that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name and that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.
C. Registered and Used in Bad FaithIn order to prevail under the third element of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, the Complainant must demonstrate that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
The Complainant has credibly shown that the ZIPRECRUITER mark was widely known within its sector. Thus, the Panel considers it unlikely that the Respondent was not aware of the Complainant’s trademark ZIPRECRUITER at the time of the disputed domain name registration. In any case, the Panel finds that the Respondent had or should have had such knowledge as per the Complainant’s worldwide registration of the trademark. The Panel also considers that the addition of the term “login” in the disputed domain name reinforces the likelihood of Internet users’ confusion, as it indicates that the disputed domain name refers to a website or related online login site provided by the Complainant.
Further, as described above concerning rights or legitimate interests, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. Therefore, the Panel concludes that the Respondent sought to register the disputed domain name because of its intention to associate with the Complainant, the Complainant’s reputation, and the Complainant’s business. The Complainant’s business consists of providing access to a webpage, whereas the customers maintain an account. Therefore, the addition of the word “login” underlines that the Respondent’s registration of the disputed trademark was in bad faith. It creates both likelihood of confusion with the ZIPRECRUITER mark and is likely to diverse Internet users seeking the Complainants services.
The disputed domain name redirects Internet users to different websites displaying seemingly random contents, which include commercial websites or websites that attempt to download, presumably malicious, files to the Internet users’ devices. Such use of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith.
Taken together with the fact that the Respondent has not filed any Response in these proceedings, not responded to the Complainant’s cease and desist letters and the descriptive term “login” relating to the Complainant’s business under the trademark, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established that the Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith.
The Panel, therefore, finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirement under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
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
Halvor Manshaus
Sole Panelist
Date: February 11, 2022