Indeed, Inc. v. Domain Admin / Domain Privacy Guard Sociedad Anónima Ltd
Claim Number: FA2002001882195
Complainant is Indeed, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Justin Haddock of Indeed, Inc., Texas, USA. Respondent is Domain Admin / Domain Privacy Guard Sociedad Anónima Ltd ("Respondent"), Panama.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <inbeeb.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 February 6, 2020; the Forum received payment on February 6, 2020.
On February 7, 2020, PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com confirmed by email to the Forum that the <inbeeb.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 February 10, 2020, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 2, 2020 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@inbeeb.com. Also on February 10, 2020, 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 March 4, 2020, 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 and the domain name <indeed.com> 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.
Respondent registered the disputed domain name <inbeeb.com> in September 2011. Complainant states that the domain name does not currently resolve to a substantive website. Complainant accuses Respondent of using the domain name in fraudulent email messages sent to Complainant’s customers as part of a phishing scheme, and provides an example of such a message. The message identifies the sender as “Indeed for Employers,” and Complainant’s logo appears within the body of the message. Complainant states that Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name, and that Complainant has not licensed or otherwise permitted Respondent to use its mark.
Complainant contends on the above grounds that the disputed domain name <inbeeb.com> is confusingly similar to its INDEED mark; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in 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 <inbeeb.com> incorporates Complainant's registered INDEED trademark, substituting a letter "B" for "D" in both instances and appending the ".com" top-level domain. The Panel notes the visual similarity of the domain name to Complainant's mark, as a lower case "B" appears to be a mirror image of a lower case "D." These alterations do not substantially diminish the similarity between the domain name and Complainant's mark. See, e.g., Teledyne Technologies Inc. v. Brian Starke, FA 1876458 (Jan. 24, 2020) (finding <telebyne.com> confusingly similar to TELEDYNE); Indeed, Inc. v. Grace Phillips, FA 1727609 (Forum May 16, 2017) (finding <lnbeed.com> confusingly similar to INDEED). 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).
Respondent registered a domain name corresponding to Complainant's mark, substituting the visually similar letter “B” for both instances of the letter “D,” and the sole apparent use of the domain name has been in connection with a fraudulent phishing scheme. Such use does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests under the Policy. See, e.g., Indeed, Inc. v. Grace Phillips, supra (finding lack of rights or interests in similar circumstances).
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 ¶ 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 ¶ 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."
As noted above, Respondent registered a domain name that is visually similar to Complainant's mark, and is using it to impersonate Complainant in connection with a fraudulent phishing scheme. Such conduct is indicative of bad faith registration and use under the Policy. See, e.g., Indeed, Inc. v. Grace Phillips, supra (finding bad faith registration and use in similar circumstances). 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 <inbeeb.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
David E. Sorkin, Panelist
Dated: March 7, 2020
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page