JS Media Inc. v. marylyn ibeneme
Claim Number: FA2205001997525
Complainant is JS Media Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Jocelyn Hanamirian of Indeed, Inc., Texas, USA. Respondent is marylyn ibeneme (“Respondent”), Nigeria.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <simplyhiredllc.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 May 23, 2022; the Forum received payment on May 23, 2022.
On May 23, 2022, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <simplyhiredllc.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 May 24, 2022, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of June 13, 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@simplyhiredllc.com. Also on May 24, 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. Respondent did however send an email to the Forum, see below.
On June 20, 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 is an affiliate of Indeed, Inc. By and through its predecessors-in-interest, Complainant has used the SIMPLY HIRED trademark for over a decade in connection with its highly successful job website and search engine (<www.simplyhired.com>), as well as related goods and services. Complaint helps companies of all sizes hire employees and helps job seekers find employment opportunities. Complainant claims rights in the SIMPLY HIRED mark through its registration in the United States in 2007.
Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its SIMPLY HIRED mark because it incorporates the mark it its entirety (minus the space) and merely adds the generic term “llc” (which stands for “Limited Liability Corporation”) and the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).
According to Complainant, Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Complainant authorized Respondent to use its SIMPLY HIRED mark in any way. Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name in connection with make a bona fide offering of goods or services or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, the resolving website purports to offer services that compete with those of Complainant, and attempts to phish for users’ personal information: the resolving website requests users to enter their name, address, Social Security Number, payment information, and to upload a copy of their driver’s license.
Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain in bad faith. Respondent uses the disputed domain name to benefit commercially by creating a likelihood of confusion and by offering competing services. Respondent uses the disputed domain name in furtherance of a phishing scheme. Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the mark.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. In its email to the Forum, Respondent states: “I don’t understand all this. I got a domain for a friend because am a web developer.”
Complainant owns the mark SIMPLY HIRED and uses it to provide employment search services.
Complainant’s registration of its mark dates back to 2007.
The disputed domain name was registered in 2021.
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark.
The resolving website purports to offer services that compete with those of Complainant and is used 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 SIMPLY HIRED mark in its entirety (without the space) and merely added the generic the term “llc” (which stands for “Limited Liability Corporation) and the “.com” gTLD. The addition of a generic or descriptive phrase and gTLD generally fails sufficiently to distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) (“Where a relevant trademark is recognisable within a disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element.”); see also Home Depot Product Authority, LLC v. Angelo Kioussis, FA 1784554 (Forum June 4, 2018) (“The domain name contains the mark in its entirety, with only the addition of the generic letters ‘sb’ and the digits ‘2018,’ plus the generic Top Level Domain (“gTLD”) ‘.com.’ These alterations of the mark, made in forming the domain name, do not save it from the realm of confusing similarity under the standards of the Policy.”). 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: 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 of record shows that the registrant is “marylyn ibeneme.” Therefore the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
The resolving website purports to offer services that compete with those of Complainant. Panels have held that using another’s mark to resolve to a website that offers products or services in competition with a Complainant’s business is not using the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See Coachella Music Festival, LLC v. josh greenly / All Access Tickets, FA1507001629217 (Forum Aug. 10, 2015) (finding that the respondent had failed to provide a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name as required under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii), where the respondent was using the disputed domain name to host a web page that featured links to services that competed with those of the complainant); see also General Motors LLC v. MIKE LEE, FA 1659965 (Forum Mar. 10, 2016) (finding that “use of a domain to sell products and/or services that compete directly with a complainant’s business does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)”). Thus 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 of fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).
Further, Respondent uses the disputed domain name to attempt to phish for users’ personal information: Complainant presents evidence showing that the resolving website requests users to enter their name, address, Social Security Number, payment information, and to upload a copy of their driver’s license. Such use is neither a bona fide offering of goods and services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”). See Virtu Financial Operating, LLC v. Lester Lomax, FA1409001580464 (Forum Nov. 14, 2014) (finding that the respondent had failed to provide a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) where the respondent was using the disputed domain name to phish for Internet users personal information by offering a fake job posting on the resolving website); see also Capital One Fin. Corp. v. Howel, FA 289304 (Forum Aug. 11, 2004) (concluding that using a domain name to redirect Internet users to a website that imitated the complainant’s credit application website and attempted to fraudulently acquire personal information from the complainant’s clients was not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use). Thus the Panel finds, on this ground also, that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods and services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).
And, for all the above reasons, the Panel finds that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Respondent 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 silence 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 disrupts Complainant’s business and attempts to attract Internet users to its competing website by creating a likelihood of confusion for commercial gain. This constitutes bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Access Res. Servs., Inc. v. Individual, FA 97750 (Forum Aug. 13, 2001) (“Respondent's registration and use of the <misscleosucks.com> domain name to promote competing psychic services, assumedly for commercial gain, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark is evidence of bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).”). Thus the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
Further, also as already noted, Respondent uses the disputed domain name to phish for users’ personal information. Using an infringing domain in furtherance of a phishing scheme may demonstrate bad faith under the Policy. See A Morgan Stanley v. Bruce Pu, FA 1764120 (Forum Feb. 2, 2018) (“[T]he screenshot of the resolving webpage allows users to input their name and email address, which Complainant claims Respondent uses that to fraudulently phish for information. Thus, the Panel agrees that Respondent phishes for information and finds that Respondent does so in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”); see also Capital One Financial Corporation and Capital One Bank v. Austin Howel, FA 289304 (Forum Aug. 11, 2004) (finding bad faith where respondent used complainant’s mark to fraudulently induce transfer of credit and personal identification information). Thus the Panel finds, on this ground also, that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith per 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 <simplyhiredllc.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Richard Hill, Panelist
Dated: June 20, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page