ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Reddit, Inc. v. asderg Case No. D2023-3875 1. The Parties The Complainant is Reddit, Inc., United States of America ("United States"), internally represented. The Respondent is asderg, United States. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The Disputed Domain Name is registered with NameSilo, LLC (the "Registrar"). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on September 15, 2023. On September 18, 2023, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On September 18, 2023, 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 (Unnamed) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on September 20, 2023, 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 amendment to the Complaint on September 20, 2023. 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 September 22, 2023. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was October 12, 2023. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on October 16, 2023. page 2 The Center appointed Colin T. O'Brien as the sole panelist in this matter on October 24, 2023. 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 social platform where over 57 million daily active unique visitors engage with more than 100.000 active communities. The Complainant owns and operates the domain name in addition to dozens of other REDDIT domain names throughout the world, including many domain names for "reddit" in various country-code top-level domains. The Complainant is the owner of the registered trademarks and service marks REDDIT and REDDIT & Design, among others (collectively, the "REDDIT Marks"). The Complainant has used the REDDIT Marks since its launch in 2005, in connection with a variety of goods and services. According to the Semrush website traffic checker, is the seventh most visited website globally as of June, 2023. The Complainant's registered trademarks and/or service marks relating to the REDDIT Marks in the United States and the European Union include but are not limited to the following: -REDDIT, Reg. No. 5019343, United States, registered on August 9, 2016, in Class 9, -REDDIT, Reg. No. 5053433, United States, registered on October 4, 2016, in Class 38, -REDDIT, Reg. No. 3786519, United States, registered on May 11, 2010, in Class 41, -REDDIT, Reg. No. 5103419, United States, registered on December 20, 2016, in Class 42, -REDDIT, Reg. No. 5008166, United States, registered on July 26, 2016, in Class 45, - Reg. No. 3474493, United States, registered on July 29, 2008, in Class 41, -REDDIT, Reg. No. 1348086, European Union, registered on June 14, 2016, in Class 9, -REDDIT, Reg. No. 9386111, European Union, registered on November 30, 2012, in Classes 38, 41, 42, and 45. The Disputed Domain Name was created on February 5, 2023, and it resolved to a website stating "Sign in with your Reddit, Inc. account to access Okta Dashboard" along with a login screen that asked the users for username and password. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant has spent a substantial amount of time, money, and resources to promote, advertise, and protect the REDDIT Marks in connection with its on-going business activities and services throughout the world. The Respondent used the Disputed Domain Name to conduct a cyberattack against the Complainant, which involved unauthorized account access/hacking, impersonation, and phishing. page 3 The Disputed Domain Name incorporates the Complainant's distinctive trademark REDDIT in its entirety and adds the descriptive acronym "sso", i.e., "single sign-on". The Complainant's registered trademark REDDIT is the dominant portion of the domain name. The addition of the word "sso" does nothing to minimize the risk of confusion but serves the nefarious purposes of the Respondent, namely, conducting a cyberattack whereby the Respondent mimics Complainant's SSO page to trick the Complainant's employees into thinking they have landed onto the Complainant's legitimate SSO page. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name. The Respondent's bad faith is evidenced by the fact that the Respondent used the Disputed Domain Name to conduct a cyberattack against the Complainant, namely gain unauthorized employee account access for the purpose of phishing confidential company information. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant has demonstrated it owns registered trademark rights in the REDDIT mark. The addition of "-sso" does not prevent the Complainant's trademark from being recognizable in the Disputed Domain Name. The generic Top-Level Domain ("gTLD") ".com" is viewed as a standard registration requirement and as such is typically disregarded under the first element confusing similarity test. Accordingly, the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to a mark in which the Complainant has rights. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition ("WIPO Overview 3.0"), sections 1.8 and 1.11.1, and F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. Domain Admin, Privacy Protection Service INC d/b/a PrivacyProtect.org / Conan Corrigan, WIPO Case No. D2015-2316. Accordingly, the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to a mark in which the Complainant has rights. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant has presented a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name and has not been commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name. The fact that the Respondent obtained the Disputed Domain Name years after the Complainant had begun using its REDDIT mark indicates that the Respondent sought to piggyback on the mark for illegitimate reasons. After a complainant has made a prima facie case, the burden of production shifts to a respondent to present evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. See, e.g., Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd., WIPO Case No. D2003-0455. The Respondent has provided no evidence of any rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. Moreover, the Disputed Domain Name incorporates the Complainant's trademark in its entirety along with the "-sso", potentially conveying to unsuspecting Internet users the false belief that any email connected to the Disputed Domain Name is associated with the Complainant. Such a risk of affiliation or association with the Complainant and its mark cannot constitute fair use. In the absence of any evidence rebutting the Complainant's prima facie case indicating the Respondent's lack of rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. page 4 C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Disputed Domain Name was registered years after the Complainant first registered and used its REDDIT marks. The evidence provided by the Complainant with respect to the extent of use and fame of its REDDIT marks combined with the absence of any evidence provided by the Respondent to the contrary, is sufficient to satisfy the Panel that, at the time the Disputed Domain Name was registered, the Respondent undoubtedly knew of the Complainant's widely-known REDDIT marks, and knew it had no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. Moreover, UDRP panels have consistently found that the mere registration of a domain name that is confusingly similar (particularly domain names comprising typos or incorporating the mark plus a descriptive term) to a famous or widely-known trademark by an unaffiliated entity can by itself create a presumption of bad faith. See section 3.1.4 of the WIPO Overview 3.0. There is prima facie no reason for the Respondent to have registered the Disputed Domain Name containing the entirety of the REDDIT trademark. While the Disputed Domain Name does not currently resolve to an active website there is ample evidence of bad faith use on the part of the Respondent specifically using it to engage in a sophisticated phishing attack on the secure potentially sensitive information from the Complainant's employees and customers. UDRP panels have found that the use of a domain name for purposes other than to host a website may constitute bad faith. Such purposes include sending email, phishing, identity theft, or malware distribution. See section 3.4 of the WIPO Overview 3.0. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied 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 Disputed Domain Name be transferred to the Complainant. /Colin T. O'Brien/ Colin T. O'Brien Sole Panelist Date: November 7, 2023
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy