Indeed, Inc. v. Grace Phillips
Claim Number: FA1704001727609
Complainant is Indeed, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Rebecca R. Younger of Pirkey Barber PLLC, Texas, USA. Respondent is Grace Phillips ("Respondent"), South Carolina, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <lnbeed.com>, registered with Internet Domain Service BS Corp.
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 April 18, 2017; the Forum received payment on April 18, 2017.
On April 19, 2017, Internet Domain Service BS Corp confirmed by email to the Forum that the <lnbeed.com> domain name is registered with Internet Domain Service BS Corp and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Internet Domain Service BS Corp has verified that Respondent is bound by the Internet Domain Service BS Corp 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 April 19, 2017, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of May 9, 2017 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@lnbeed.com. Also on April 19, 2017, 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 May 15, 2017, 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 for more than a decade in connection with this website, 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 <lnbeed.com> in February 2017. The domain name resolves to a website that Complainant describes as a "blatant reproduction" of Complainant's own site, prominently featuring Complainant's mark and logo, along with links to Complainant's site. Respondent's website prompts users for an email address and password; Complainant asserts that it is being used in connection with a fraudulent scheme to steal users' personal information. Complainant states that it has not licensed nor otherwise permitted Respondent to use its INDEED mark, and that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. On these grounds Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which it has rights; that Respondent has no 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.
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 and inferences set forth in the Complaint as true unless the evidence is clearly contradictory. See Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Forum July 31, 2000) (holding that the respondent's failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of the complaint to be deemed true); see also Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009 (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000) ("In the absence of a response, it is appropriate to accept as true all allegations of the Complaint.").
The disputed domain name <lnbeed.com> corresponds to Complainant's registered mark, substituting "L" for "I" and "B" for the first "D," and adding the ".com" top-level domain. The Panel notes that a lower case "L" can be visually similar to an upper case "I," while a lower case "B" appears as a mirror image of a lower case "D." These modifications therefore do not substantially diminish the similarity between the domain name and Complainant's mark. See, e.g., Indeed, Inc. v. Rina Lay, FA 1693112 (Forum Oct. 11, 2016) (finding <lndeed.co> confusingly similar to INDEED); Tinder, Inc. v. Domain Admin, Whois Privacy Corp., D2016-1479 (WIPO Sept. 13, 2016) (finding <tlnder.com> confusingly similar to TINDER); Instagram, LLC v. Zhou Murong, D2014-1550 (WIPO Nov. 20, 2014) (finding <lnstagram.com> confusingly similar to INSTAGRAM); Toronto-Dominion Bank v. Above.com Domain Privacy, FA 1540025 (Forum Mar. 10, 2014) (finding <tddank.com> confusingly similar to TD BANK); Fandango, Inc. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd., FA 1359315 (Forum Dec. 20, 2010) (finding <fanbango.com> confusingly similar to FANDANGO). The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant's mark.
Under the Policy, Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and then the burden shifts to Respondent to come forward with concrete evidence of such rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm't Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006).
Respondent registered a domain name corresponding to Complainant's mark, substituting two typographically similar letters to create a domain name with no apparent meaning other than as a misspelled version of the word "indeed." The domain name resolves to a website whose apparent purpose is to collect personal information from Internet users by creating and exploiting confusion with Complainant's mark or website. Such use does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests under the Policy. See Discover Financial Services v. Muhammad Zuliman, FA 1704356 (Forum Jan. 3, 2017).
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 has been used in bad faith. Under paragraph 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 paragraph 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 corresponding to Complainant's mark with typographical errors, and is using it to confuse Internet users and steal their personal information. Such behavior, often described as "typosquatting" or "phishing," is indicative of bad faith registration and use under the Policy. See, e.g., Discover Financial Services v. Muhammad Zuliman, supra (finding bad faith in similar circumstances); Indeed, Inc. v. Rina Lay, supra (same); Universal Protein Supplements Corporation d/b/a Universal Nutrition v. Miriam Ahmad / Miriam Ahmad, FA 1608722 (Forum Apr. 13, 2015). 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 <lnbeed.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
David E. Sorkin, Panelist
Dated: May 16, 2017
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page