Rocket Lawyer Incorporated v. True Shopping
Claim Number: FA2112001976510
Complainant is Rocket Lawyer Incorporated (“Complainant”), represented by Josh Gerben of Gerben Perrott PLLC, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is True Shopping (“Respondent”), India.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <r0cketlawyer.com>, (‘the Domain Name’) registered with NameCheap, Inc.
The undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Dawn Osborne as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on December 9, 2021; the Forum received payment on December 9, 2021.
On December 9, 2021, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <r0cketlawyer.com> Domain Name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameCheap, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameCheap, Inc. 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 December 13, 2021, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of January 3, 2022 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@r0cketlawyer.com. Also on December 13, 2021, 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 January 10, 2022 pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Dawn Osborne 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
The Complainant’s contentions can be summarized as follows;
The Complainant is the owner of the mark ROCKET LAWYER mark registered, inter alia, in the USA for legal services since 2006. The Complainant also owns rocketlawyer.com.
The Domain Name registered in 2021 is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s marks merely substituting a number ‘0’ for the letter ‘o’ in ‘Rocket’ and adding a gTLD neither which prevents confusing similarity. It is a typosquatted domain.
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, is not commonly known by it and is not authorized by the Complainant. Typosquatting is an indication of a lack of rights or legitimate interests. The Domain Name has been used for competing pay per click links which is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a noncommercial legitimate or fair use.
Diverting Internet users using the Domain Name to competing pay per click links is bad faith diversion of Internet users for commercial gain and disruption of the Complainant’s business. Typosquatting is indicative of bad faith per se.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
The Complainant is the owner of the mark ROCKET LAWYER mark registered, inter alia, in the USA for legal services since 2006. The Complainant also owns rocketlawyer.com.
The Domain Name registered in 2021 has been used for competing pay per click links.
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 Domain Name consists of a sign confusingly similar to the Complainant’s ROCKET LAWYER mark (registered, inter alia, in the USA for legal services since 2006) merely substituting the number ‘0’ for the ‘o’ in ROCKET and adding the gTLD “.com”.
Misspelling a mark does not prevent confusing similarity between the domain name and the mark. See Hallelujah Acres Inc. v. Manila Indus., Inc., FA 805029 (Forum Nov 15, 2006).
Adding the gTLD “.com” does not serve to distinguish the Domain Name from the Complainant’s mark. See Red Hat Inc. v. Haecke, FA 726010 (Forum July 24, 2006) (concluding that the redhat.org domain name is identical to the complainant's red hat mark because the mere addition of the gTLD was insufficient to differentiate the disputed domain name from the mark).
Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar for the purpose to a mark in which the Complainant has rights.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant has not authorized the use of its mark. The Respondent has not answered this Complaint and there is no evidence or reason to suggest the Respondent is, in fact, commonly known by the Domain Name. See Alaska Air Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines v. Song Bin, FA1408001574905 (Forum Sept. 17, 2014) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name as demonstrated by the WHOIS information and based on the fact that the complainant had not licensed or authorized the respondent to use its ALASKA AIRLINES mark).
The Respondent has used the site attached to the Domain Name for links which offer competing services not connected with the Complainant. It does not make it clear that there is no commercial connection with the Complainant. The Panel finds this use is confusing. As such it cannot amount to the bona fide offering of goods and services. See ALPITOUR SpA v. Albloushi, FA 888651 (Forum Feb 26, 2007) (rejecting the Respondent's contentions of rights and legitimate interests because the respondent was merely using the domain name to operate a web site containing links to various competing commercial web sites which the panel did not find to be bona fide use in relation to goods and service under the Policy.). The use is commercial and so cannot be a legitimate noncommercial fair use.
The Domain Name is also an example of a typosquatted domain name. Typosquatting, the practice of registering a domain name containing typing errors in a complainant’s mark, can indicate a lack of rights and legitimate interests in a domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See Chegg Inc. v. yang qijin, FA1503001610050 (Forum Apr. 23, 2015) (“Users might mistakenly reach Respondent’s resolving website by misspelling Complainant’s mark. Taking advantage of Internet users’ typographical errors, known as typosquatting, demonstrates a respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interests under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).”).
As such the Panelist finds that the Respondent does not have rights or a legitimate interest in the Domain Name and that the Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
The Respondent has not answered this Complaint or explained why it should be allowed to register a domain name containing a sign confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark with a reputation for legal services and use it to link to competing services in what appears on the face of it to be a typosquatting registration.
The Domain Name seeks to take advantage of the situation where Internet users may make a typographical error. Typosquatting itself is evidence of relevant bad faith registration and use and disruption of the Complainant’s business. See Diners Club int'l Ltd. v. Domain Admin ****** It's all in the name ******, FA 156839 (Forum June 23, 2003) (registering a domain name in the hope that Internet users will mistype the Complainant’s mark and be taken to the Respondent’s site is registration and use in bad faith). Typosquatting also indicates the Respondent had knowledge of the Complainant and its rights. See InfoSpace, Inc. v. Greiner, FA 227653 (Forum Mar. 8, 2004) (“Respondent’s domain name is a simple and popular variation of a trademark commonly used by typosquatters …Such a domain name evidences actual knowledge of the underlying mark prior to the registration of the domain name, and as Respondent failed to submit any evidence to counter this inferrence [sic], Respondent’s actions evidence bad faith registration of the disputed domain name.”).
The Respondent is using the Domain Name to profit by linking to third party competing web sites in a confusing manner. The Panel holds that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trade mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the web site attached to the Domain Name and links to businesses on it. See Dovetail Ventures LLC v. Klayton Thorpe, FA 1506001625786 (Forum Aug. 2, 2015) (holding that the respondent had acted in bad faith under Policy 4(b)(iv) where it used the disputed domain name to host a variety of hyperlinks through which the Respondent presumably gained).
Further it has been held that such use is disruptive under Policy 4 (b)(iii) of the Policy. See Adriana Inc v. Moniker Privacy services, FA 1503001610020 (Forum May 1, 2015) (Using pay per click links redirecting users to competing web sites to disrupt and compete with a Complainant’s business is evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy 4(b)(iii).)
As such, the Panel holds that the Complainant has made out its case that the Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith and has satisfied the third limb of the Policy under 4(b)(iii) and (iv).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <r0cketlawyer.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Dawn Osborne, Panelist
Dated: January 11, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page