Complainant is Simply Hired, Inc., Sunnyvale, California, United States of America, internally represented.
Respondent is Domain Administrator, Bellevue, Washington, United States of America (the “United States”). 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Key-Systems GmbH d/b/a . 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 30, 2012. On April 2, 2012, the Center transmitted by email to Key-Systems GmbH d/b/a a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On April 3, 2012, Key-Systems GmbH d/b/a transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. In response to a notification by the Center that the Complaint was administratively deficient, Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on April 18, 2012.
On April 19, 2012, Key-Systems GmbH d/b/a informed the Center that it has been informed by its reseller that the language of the Registration Agreement is Czech. The same day the Center sent an email communication to Complainant, informing Complainant that pursuant to the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), paragraph 11, in the absence of an agreement between the parties, or specified otherwise in the registration agreement, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the registration agreement, subject to the authority of the Administrative Panel (once appointed) to determine otherwise. Additionally, the Center instructed Complainant to provide satisfactory evidence of an agreement between Complainant and Respondent to the effect that the proceedings should be in English, submit the Complaint translated into Czech, or submit a request for English to be the language of the administrative proceedings. On April 19, 2012, Complainant submitted a request for English to be the language of the administrative proceedings.
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(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on April 25, 2012. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was May 15, 2012. Respondent did not reply to the Complaint. Accordingly, the Center confirmed Respondent’s default on May 18, 2012.
The Center appointed Clark W. Lackert as the sole panelist in this matter on May 29, 2012. 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 Simply Hired, Inc. owns a trademark registration for SIMPLY HIRED, specifically International Madrid IR No. 897829 which was granted on March 28, 2006 and is recognized in China, the European Community, and Japan. Complainant also owns multiple trademark registrations for SIMPLY HIRED in word and stylized forms in the United States, specifically Registration Nos. 3229158, 3215124, 3212618, and 3262130. The aforementioned registrations cover services in Classes 38, 41, and 42 including provision of software and online newsletters, bulletin boards, and chat rooms in the field of employment including job placement and job recruitment.
The disputed domain name was registered on July 20, 2010. According to WhoIs records associated with the disputed domain name, Respondent is based in the State of Washington in the United States. The record shows that the disputed domain name has been used to display links to third party websites. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
Complainant claims that the disputed domain name is likely to be confused with its SIMPLY HIRED trademark because it incorporates its SIMPLY HIRED trademark. Complainant also notes that the disputed domain name is very similar to Complainant’s corporate website “www.m” because it incorporates an identical letter string with the exception of the letter “m” in the “.com” portion of top-level domain extension. Complainant maintains that Respondent is not using the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods and services, has never been known as “simply hired”, and is using the disputed domain name to mislead consumers who intend to visit Complainant’s website. Regarding bad faith, Complainant alleges that Respondent purchased the domain name on the day the “.co” domain extension was opened in the interest of preventing Complainant from acquiring the domain name so that Respondent could later sell, rent, or transfer the disputed domain name to Complainant. B. Respondent
Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Language of Proceeding
Paragraph 11(a) of the Rules provides that, unless otherwise agreed by the parties, or specified otherwise in the registration agreement for the disputed domain name, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the registration agreement. This is subject to the authority of the Panel to determine otherwise, having regard to the circumstances of the case.
The language of the registration agreement for the disputed domain name is Czech. Complainant has requested that the proceeding be conducted in English. Respondent did not comment regarding the language of the proceeding.
Because Respondent did not object by the deadline, the Center initiated the administrative proceeding in the English language and sent all further communications in the English and Czech languages. The Center also invited Respondent to submit a response in the English or Czech languages.
The Panel believes that the decision to proceed in the English language is appropriate given that the record shows that the content of the disputed domain name has been displayed in the English language and that Respondent is located in the United States, a country where English is spoken. Translation of the Complaint and other materials would create unnecessary delay. B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant’s SIMPLY HIRED trademark in its entirety. It has been held that the incorporation of a trademark in its entirety into a domain name is sufficient to establish that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark at issue. Britannia Building Society v. Britannia Fraud Prevention,WIPO Case No. D2001-0505. The addition of the top-level domain extension “.co” is without legal significance when comparing a domain name to a registered trademark. See e.g.. E, Inc. v. Bestinfo,WIPO Case No. D2006-0573 citing The Forward Association, Inc., v. Enterprises Unlimited, NAF Claim No. FA 095491 (“[N]either the beginning of the URL (http://www.), nor the TLD (.com) have any source indicating significance).
The Panel finds that the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy have been satisfied. C. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Complainant has established rights in the SIMPLY HIRED trademark which precede the creation of the disputed domain name. Complainant’s rights are recognized in the United States, the jurisdiction cited as Respondent’s country of residence.
There is no evidence in the record to indicate that Respondent is associated or affiliated with Complainant, or that Respondent has any other rights or legitimate interests in “simply hired”. As such, the Complainant has made out its prima facie case, which the Respondent has not rebutted.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. D. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The record shows that Complainant has established trademark rights in SIMPLY HIRED in multiple jurisdictions including the United States, the country cited as Respondent’s jurisdiction of residence. Complainant’s trademark rights precede the creation of the disputed domain name.
There is evidence suggesting that the links displayed on Respondent’s website are efforts to trade off the goodwill of Complainant’s trademarks and divert web traffic. Specifically, Respondent’s website consists primarily of links relating to employment services similar to those provided by Complainant. The incorporation of third party links regarding services competitive to those provided under another party’s trademark supports a finding that a domain name registrant was aware of the other party’s mark at the time the domain name was registered. Lancôme Parfums et Beaute & Compagnie v. D Nigam, Privacy Protection Services / Pluto Domains Services Private Limited,WIPO Case No. D2009-0728.
The content of the disputed domain name suggests to the Panel that Respondent is aware of Complainant. Specifically, the record shows that Respondent’s website incorporates links relating to employment and job services including links titled “Local Jobs” and “Job Openings” and links to websites of third party competitors of Complainant including and . The aforementioned domain names advertise job search and career networking services respectively. Registration and use of a domain name incorporating another party’s trademark and providing links which expressly refer to services provided under that trademark has been held to be indicative of a respondent’s knowledge of the goods or services provided under the trademark. See Caesars World, Inc. v. Forum LLC,WIPO Case No. D2005-0517.
By registering the disputed domain name and offering links to third party services directly competitive with those of Complainant, Respondent is diverting traffic from Complainant’s domain name in violation of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. There is no evidence in the record to refute this contention. Registration of a confusingly similar domain name for the purpose of displaying links offering competitive products or services has been found in prior cases to be indicative of bad faith in violation of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. See, e.g., Serta Inc. v. Charles Dawson,WIPO Case No. D2008-1474 and S.N.C. Jesta Fontainebleau v. Po Ser,WIPO Case No. D2009-1394.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied the requirements 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 name be transferred to Complainant.
Clark W. Lackert
Sole Panelist
Dated: June 20, 2012
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy