Quora, Inc. v. Maurice A
Claim Number: FA1906001848344
Complainant is Quora, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Jennifer A. Golinveaux, of Winston & Strawn LLP, California, USA. Respondent is Maurice A (“Respondent”), California, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <quorabusiness.com> and <thebestofquora.com>, registered with Wild West Domains, LLC.
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.
Kenneth L. Port as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on June 17, 2019; the Forum received payment on June 17, 2019.
On June 19, 2019, Wild West Domains, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <quorabusiness.com> and <thebestofquora.com> domain names are registered with Wild West Domains, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Wild West Domains, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Wild West Domains, LLC 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 June 25, 2019, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 15, 2019 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@quorabusiness.com, postmaster@thebestofquora.com. Also on June 25, 2019, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail 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 July 19, 2019, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Kenneth L. Port 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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant operates the information-sharing and learning website <quora.com>. Complainant has rights in the QUORA mark based upon its registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 4,119,033, registered Mar. 27, 2012). See Amend. Compl. Annex E. Respondent’s <quorabusiness.com> domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s QUORA mark because it wholly incorporates Complainant’s QUORA mark, and merely adds the generic term “business” and the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”). Respondent’s <thebestofquora.com> domain name is also identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s QUORA mark as it wholly incorporates Complainant’s QUORA mark, and merely adds the generic terms “the”, “best”, and “of” as well as the “.com” gTLD.
Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the <quorabusiness.com> and <thebestofquora.com> domain names because Respondent is not authorized or licensed to use Complainant’s QUORA mark and there is no evidence to suggest that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain names. Respondent fails to use the disputed domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Respondent’s <quorabusiness.com> domain name features no content. Respondent’s <thebestofquora.com> domain name previously featured a question-and-answer service that competed directly with Complainant’s service. See Amend. Compl. Annex K. As of April 4, 2019, Respondent’s <thebestofquora.com> domain name’s resolving webpage is parked.
Respondent registered and uses the <quorabusiness.com> and <thebestofquora.com> domain names in bad faith. Respondent engages in disruption of Complainant’s business by creating initial interest confusion at the disputed domain names. Respondent attempts to attract, for commercial gain, users to the disputed domain names where Respondent offers competing services. See Amend. Compl. Annex K. Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s QUORA mark prior to registering the disputed domain names.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. Respondent registered the <quorabusiness.com> and <thebestofquora.com> domain names on February 8, 2018 and July 19, 2013 respectively.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain names are each confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark; that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in or to the disputed domain names; and that Respondent has engaged in bad faith use and registration of the dispute domain names.
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 Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at ¶ 4.3; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (“Because Complainant did not produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations [. . .] the Panel finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint”).
The Panel finds that the disputed domain names are each confusingly similar to Complainant’s valid and subsisting trademark. Complainant has adequately plead its rights and interests in and to this trademark. Respondent arrives at the disputed domain names by wholly incorporating Complainant’s QUORA mark, and merely adds the generic term “business” and the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”). Respondent’s <thebestofquora.com> domain name is also identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s QUORA mark as it wholly incorporates Complainant’s QUORA mark, and merely adds the generic terms “the”, “best”, and “of” as well as the “.com” gTLD. This is insufficient to distinguish the disputed domain names from Complainant’s trademark.
As such, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are each confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark.
Additionally, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in or to the disputed domain names. Respondent has no right, permission or license to register the disputed domain names. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names. Respondent fails to use the disputed domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Respondent’s <quorabusiness.com> domain name features no content. Respondent’s <thebestofquora.com> domain name previously featured a question-and-answer service that competed directly with Complainant’s service. See Amend. Compl. Annex K. As of April 4, 2019, Respondent’s <thebestofquora.com> domain name’s resolving webpage is parked.
As such, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in or to the disputed domain names.
The Panel also finds that Respondent has engaged in bad faith use and registration of the dispute domain names. Complainant argues Respondent registered and uses the <quorabusiness.com> and <thebestofquora.com> domain names in bad faith because Respondent engages in disruption of Complainant’s business by creating initial interest confusion at the disputed domain names. A respondent’s use of a disputed domain name to feature content that is identical to a complainant’s own website is disruption and can evince a finding of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See United States Postal Service v. kyle javier, FA 1787265 (Forum June 12, 2018) (“Complainant alleges that Respondent is using the disputed domain name to divert Internet users to Respondent’s website, which features content that is identical to Complainant’s own website. The Panel finds that Respondent is disrupting Complainant’s business and that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).”). Here, Complainant provides screenshots of the <thebestofquora.com> domain name which features a competing question-and-answer service on the resolving webpage. See Amend. Compl. Annex K. Thus, the Panel finds that Respondent has engaged in bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).
Complainant argues Respondent registered and uses the <quorabusiness.com> and <thebestofquora.com> domain names in bad faith because Respondent attempts to attract, for commercial gain, users to the disputed domain names where Respondent offers competing services. See Amend. Compl. Annex K. A respondent’s use of a disputed domain name to display products similar to a complainant’s imputes intent to attract Internet users for commercial gain, and finds bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Xylem Inc. and Xylem IP Holdings LLC v. YinSi BaoHu YiKaiQi, FA1504001612750 (Forum May 13, 2015) (“The Panel agrees that Respondent’s use of the website to display products similar to Complainant’s, imputes intent to attract Internet users for commercial gain, and finds bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).”). Here, Complainant provides screenshots of the <thebestofquora.com> domain name which features a competing question-and-answer service on the resolving webpage. See Compl. Annex K. Thus, the Panel finds that Respondent has engaged in bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
Finally, given the totality of the circumstances and the fame of the mark, the Panel finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s trademark and it rights thereto.
As such, the Panel finds that Respondent has engaged in bad faith use and registration of the disputed domain names.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <quorabusiness.com> and <thebestofquora.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Kenneth L. Port, Panelist
Dated: July 30, 2019
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page