Indeed, Inc. v. Ibile Yankee
Claim Number: FA1905001841723
Complainant is Indeed, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Justin S. Haddock of Indeed, Inc., Texas, USA. Respondent is Ibile Yankee ("Respondent"), North Carolina, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <indeedjb.com>, registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com.
The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
David E. Sorkin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on May 3, 2019; the Forum received payment on May 3, 2019.
On May 7, 2019, PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com confirmed by email to the Forum that the <indeedjb.com> domain name is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy").
On May 8, 2019, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of May 28, 2019 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via email to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@indeedjb.com. Also on May 8, 2019, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the email addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts.
Having received no response from Respondent, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On May 29, 2019, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed David E. Sorkin as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the Forum's Supplemental Rules, and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant operates a popular website for employers and job seekers, with over 200 million unique monthly visitors from over 60 countries. Complainant has used the INDEED mark for this purpose since at least 2004, and asserts that the mark has become famous as a result of such use. Complainant claims rights in the mark both at common law and by virtue of various trademark registrations in United States and other jurisdictions, including registrations for INDEED both in standard character form and as a stylized logo.
Respondent registered the disputed domain name <indeedjb.com> in March 2019. The domain name is being used for a website that displays Complainant's INDEED mark and logo and contains a purported job listing, soliciting personal information from users in what Complainant characterizes as a blatant phishing attempt.
Complainant states that it has not licensed nor otherwise permitted Respondent to use its INDEED mark, and that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. On these grounds, Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which it has rights; that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable."
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred:
(1) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
(2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a), and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, § 4.3 (3d ed. 2017), available at http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (dismissing complaint where complainant failed to "produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations").
The disputed domain name <indeedjb.com> incorporates Complainant's registered INDEED trademark, adding the letters "jb" (probably a shortened form of the generic term "job," which relates to Complainant's business) and the ".com" top-level domain. These additions do not substantially diminish the similarity between the domain name and Complainant's mark. See, e.g., Indeed, Inc. v. Priyanka Meena, FA 1824187 (Forum Feb. 4, 2019) (finding <indeedjobboard.com> confusingly similar to INDEED); Indeed, Inc. v. Domain Admin / Domain Privacy Guard Sociedad Anónima Ltd, FA 1814504 (Forum Nov. 24, 2018) (finding <indeeded.com> confusingly similar to INDEED); Indeed, Inc. v. Ankit Bhardwaj / Recruiter, FA 1739470 (Forum Aug. 3, 2017) (finding <indeedjobz.com> confusingly similar to INDEED). Accordingly, the Panel considers the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights.
Under the Policy, the Complainant must first make a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and then the burden shifts to the Respondent to come forward with concrete evidence of such rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Productions, Inc. v. Entertainment Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006).
The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's registered mark without authorization, and it is being used for a website that uses Complainant's mark and logo to promote competing services, likely as part of a fraudulent phishing scheme. Such use does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests under the Policy. See, e.g., Indeed, Inc. v. Javeed Khan, FA 1763184 (Forum Jan. 9, 2018) (finding lack of rights or interests where domain name incorporating INDEED mark was used for fraudulent website offering employment-related services); Indeed, Inc. v. Grace Phillips, FA 1727609 (Forum May 16, 2017) (finding lack of rights or interests where domain name corresponding to typographical variation of INDEED mark was used for website imitating complainant's site in attempt to obtain users' personal information).
Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name, and Respondent has failed to come forward with any evidence of such rights or interests. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has sustained its burden of proving that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
Finally, Complainant must show that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Under paragraph 4(b)(iii) of the Policy, bad faith may be shown by evidence that Respondent registered the disputed domain name "primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor." Under paragraph 4(b)(iv), bad faith may be shown by evidence that "by using the domain name, [Respondent] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [Respondent's] web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [Respondent's] web site or location or of a product or service on [Respondent's] web site or location."
Respondent registered a domain name incorporating Complainant's mark and is using it to confuse Internet users and promote competing services, likely as part of a fraudulent phishing scheme. Such behavior is indicative of bad faith registration and use under the Policy. See, e.g., Indeed, Inc. v. Javeed Khan, supra (finding bad faith in similar circumstances); Indeed, Inc. v. Ankit Bhardwaj / Recruiter, supra (same); Indeed, Inc. v. Grace Phillips, supra (same). The Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
Having considered the three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <indeedjb.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
David E. Sorkin, Panelist
Dated: June 3, 2019
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page