Complainant is OkCupid, operated by Humor Rainbow, Inc., of Dallas, Texas, United States of America ("United States"), represented by Locke Lord LLP, United States.
Respondent is Nanci Nette, Name Management Group of Los Angeles, California, United States. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with GoD, LLC (the "Registrar"). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on February 28, 2017. On March 1, 2017, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On March 1, 2017, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that 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").
In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on March 10, 2017. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 30, 2017. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent's default on March 31, 2017.
The Center appointed Timothy D. Casey as the sole panelist in this matter on April 7, 2017. 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 has provided online dating services under the OKCUPID brand, since 2004. Complainant owns rights in a trademark registration for OKCUPID pursuant to United States Trademark Registration No. 3,334,217 (the "OKCUPID Trademark"), which was registered in November 2007. Complainant's website, under the domain name, which was first registered in March 2003, provides services to over one hundred thousand users and Complainant's corresponding app is installed, on average, by over one million users each week.
The disputed domain name was registered on July 21, 2010. The disputed domain name currently resolves to a website that appears to automatically generate advertisements, at least some of which are related to online dating services. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant
Complainant contends the disputed domain name is identical to the OKCUPID Trademark. The mere addition of the country code Top-Level Domain ("ccTLD") suffix ".co" is not sufficient to differentiate or distinguish the disputed domain name from the OKCUPID Trademark. Further, Complainant contends that use of the ".co" ccTLD suffix attempts to capitalize on typo-traffic as a result of a user accidentally omitting the final letter "m" from Complainant's otherwise identical domain name.
Complainant further contends that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name because Respondent has not used the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. In particular, Complainant contends that Respondent's use diverts consumers to a "link farm parking page" that redirects traffic to other websites offering services competitive to Complainant's services.
Complaint states that it has not authorized Respondent to use the OKCUPID Trademark, that Respondent does not appear to commonly known by the disputed domain name, and that Respondent does not appear to be making any legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. For example, Complainant notes that Respondent's website merely provides links redirecting them to competing websites.
As for evidence of bad faith, Complainant alleges that the OKCUPID domain name was registered seven years before the disputed domain name and that Complainant's rights in the OKCUPID Trademark put Respondent on constructive and actual notice of Complainant's right. Complainant further alleges that Respondent's use of the disputed domain name to drive consumers to websites offering competitive services constitutes bad faith. B. Respondent
Respondent did not reply to Complainant's contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
In view of Respondent's failure to reply to Complainant's contentions, the Panel will treat Complainant's contentions as true and undisputed unless it is unreasonable or unnecessary to do otherwise. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant's trademark registration in the United States is sufficient to establish that Complainant has trademark rights in the OKCUPID Trademark.
Complainant contends that the disputed domain name incorporates the entirety of and is identical to the OKCUPID Trademark and that the ccTLD suffix is either meaningless or further contributes to confusion between the disputed domain name and Respondent's use and Complainant's Trademark. The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical to the OKCUPID Trademark and that the incorporation of the ccTLD suffix ".co" is typically disregarded as a technical requirement and does nothing to further distinguish the disputed domain name from the OKCUPID Trademark.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical to a trademark in which Complainant has rights. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Panel finds that Respondent has no right or legitimate interest in the dispute domain name. Respondent does not appear to be commonly known by the disputed domain name. Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use or register the disputed domain name. The links on Respondent's website do nothing to create any legitimate interests in the disputed domain name as it is well established that such links, which lead Internet users to Complainant's competitors, do not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services.
The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Given the timing of Complainant's registration of the OKCUPID Trademark and use in association with the noted goods, and the timing of Respondent's subsequent registration of the disputed domain name, using terms that clearly associate the disputed domain name with Complainant's goods, the Panel finds that registration of the disputed domain name was in bad faith.
The Panel notes that the disputed domain name is parked with a website hosting links to services that compete with those of Complainant presumably generating click-through revenue, which cannot be by coincidence. Hence, the Panel finds such usage to constitute use in bad faith consistent with paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.
The Panel concludes that the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith. 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 Complainant.
Timothy D. Casey
Sole Panelist
Date: April 25, 2017
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy