Twilio Inc. v. olodo girl
Claim Number: FA2203001986802
Complainant is Twilio Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Jessica Tam of Cobalt LLP, California, USA. Respondent is olodo girl (“Respondent”), Indiana, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <twiliojobs.com>, registered with NameCheap, Inc..
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.
Richard Hill as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on March 3, 2022; the Forum received payment on March 3, 2022.
On March 3, 2022, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <twiliojobs.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 March 7, 2022, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 28, 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@twiliojobs.com. Also on March 7, 2022, 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 April 1, 2022, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Richard Hill 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 states that it was founded in 2008 and is a worldwide leader in cloud communications. It is not an exaggeration to say that Complainant’s services touches directly upon millions of lives. This is because Complainant’s cloud communication platform is the plumbing upon which many modern mobile applications are built upon. Every time a consumer calls for a ride through Uber, orders food from DoorDash, or books a stay with Airbnb, it is highly likely that customer is using Complainant’s services. Complainant is a truly global company whose technology has democratized communications infrastructure by allowing millions of developers around the world to easily create communication channels in the products they build. Complainant is currently headquartered in San Francisco, California, but has 26 offices in 17 countries all over the world. In fiscal year 2020, Complainant’s full year of revenue was $1.8 billion, and the company’s current valuation is at $40.66 billion. Complainant has rights in the TWILIO mark due to the registration of the mark in the United States in 2011. The mark is registered elsewhere around the world.
Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its TWILIO mark as it incorporates the mark in its entirety and merely adds the generic/descriptive term “jobs” along with the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).
According to Complainant, Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name as Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name nor did Complainant authorize Respondent to use the TWILIO mark in any way. Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent attempts to impersonate Complainant and offers fake job listings in order to phish for users’ personal information. Specifically, the resolving website displays job listings; once applicants click on the job listing, they are taken to a Google Forms page where their personal information is collected. Applicants are then contacted by someone impersonating one of Complainant’s employees to set up an interview, presumably to move on to the next stage of the scam. This is a common scam where after the victim believes they have been formally hired, the scammer will send victims a fraudulent check, ostensibly to purchase office supplies from a specified vendor. The victim is then required to purchase the office supplies by wiring money before the fake check clears the victim’s account, leading to injury for the victim and financial gain for Respondent.
Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith as Respondent attempts to pass off as and impersonate Complainant by offering fake job listings in order to phish for users’ personal information. The WHOIS information is false.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant owns the mark TWILIO and uses it to market cloud computing services.
Complainant’s rights in its mark date back to at least 2011.
The disputed domain name was registered in 2022.
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its marks.
Respondent uses the disputed domain name attempt to pass off as and impersonate Complainant by offering fake job listings in order to phish for users’ personal information.
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 disputed domain name incorporates Complainant’s TWILIO mark in its entirety and merely adds the generic/descriptive term “jobs” along with the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”). Adding a generic word and a gTLD to a mark does not distinguish the domain name from the mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Wiluna Holdings, LLC v. Edna Sherman, FA 1652781 (Forum Jan. 22, 2016) (finding the addition of a generic term and gTLD is insufficient in distinguishing a disputed domain name from a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)). Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name: where a response is lacking, WHOIS information may be used to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. LY Ta, FA 1789106 (Forum June 21, 2018) (concluding a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name where the complainant asserted it did not authorize the respondent to use the mark, and the relevant WHOIS information indicated the respondent is not commonly known by the domain name). Here, the WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the registrant as “olodo girl”. Therefore the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
Respondent uses the disputed domain name to attempt to impersonate Complainant to offer fake job listings and to phish for users’ personal information. Use of a disputed domain name that attempts to confuse internet users by offering jobs related to complainant’s business is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii), nor is phishing. See Blackstone TM L.L.C. v. Mita Irelant Ltd., FA 1314998 (Forum Apr. 30, 2010) (finding phishing for personal information is neither a bona fide offering of goods and services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)); see also Emerson Electric Co. v. golden humble / golden globals, FA 1787128 (Forum June 11, 2018) (“Passing off as a complainant through e-mails is evidence that a respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) & (iii).”). Therefore the Panel finds that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). And the Panel finds that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Complainant alleges that the WHOIS information is false because Respondent’s name “Olodo Girl” is “an obviously fake name”. However, Complainant provides no evidence to support this allegation, nor does it allege – much less provide evidence to show – that the other elements of the WHOIS are false. Thus the Panel finds that Complainant has failed to satisfy its burden of proof for this allegation and it will not further discuss the allegation.
Respondent (who did not reply to Complainant’s contentions) has not presented any plausible explanation for its use of Complainant’s mark. In accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel shall draw such inferences from Respondent’s failure to reply as it considers appropriate. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent did not have a legitimate use in mind when registering the disputed domain name.
Indeed, as already noted, Respondent uses the disputed domain name to attempt to pass off as and impersonate Complainant by offering fake job listings in order to phish for users’ personal information. Use of a disputed domain that attempts to pass off as complainant by offering jobs with complainant’s business, and phishing, may be evidence of bad faith per Policy ¶¶ 4(a)(iii) and 4(b)(iii). See Microsoft Corporation v. Terrence Green / Whois Agent / Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc., FA 1661030 (Forum Apr. 4, 2016) (finding the respondent’s use of the disputed domain names to send fraudulent emails supported a finding of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)); see also Klabzuba Oil & Gas, Inc. v. LAKHPAT SINGH BHANDARI, FA1506001625750 (Forum July 17, 2015) (finding that use of a domain to engage in phishing constitutes bad faith); see also McKinsey & Company, Inc., and McKinsey Holdings, Inc. v. Privacy Protection, report abuse to / Registrar: DELTA-X Ltd., FA1409001580883 (Forum Oct. 25, 2014) (holding that the respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to obtain Internet users’ personal information including driver license numbers and names was further evidence of bad faith registration and use); see also Wells Fargo & Co. v. Maniac State, FA 608239 (Forum Jan. 19, 2006) (finding bad faith registration and use where the respondent was using the <wellsbankupdate.com> domain name in order to fraudulently acquire the personal and financial information of the complainant’s customers). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith per Policy ¶¶ 4(a)(iii) and 4(b)(iii).
Further, Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s mark: Complainant presents evidence showing that Respondent explicitly and specifically referred to Complainant in messages to users, and attempted to impersonate some of Complainant’s actual employees. While constructive notice is insufficient to demonstrate bad faith, actual knowledge of a complainant’s rights in a mark prior to registration may be evidence of bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Custom Modular Direct LLC v. Custom Modular Homes Inc., FA 1140580 (Forum Apr. 8, 2008) (“There is no place for constructive notice under the Policy.”); see also Am. Online, Inc. v. Miles, FA 105890 (Forum May 31, 2002) (“Respondent is using the domain name at issue to resolve to a website at which Complainant’s trademarks and logos are prominently displayed. Respondent has done this with full knowledge of Complainant’s business and trademarks. The Panel finds that this conduct is that which is prohibited by Paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.”). The Panel finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the mark prior to Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name and that this constitutes bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <twiliojobs.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Richard Hill, Panelist
Dated: April 1, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page