Indeed, Inc. v. Ankit Bhardwaj / Recruiter
Claim Number: FA1707001739470
Complainant is Indeed, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Rebecca R. McCurry of Pirkey Barber PLLC, Texas, U.S.A. Respondent is Ankit Bhardwaj / Recruiter (“Respondent”), India.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <indeedjobz.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.
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.
Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on July 11, 2017; the Forum received payment on July 10, 2017.
On July 12, 2017, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <indeedjobz.com> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, LLC 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 July 13, 2017, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 2, 2017 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@indeedjobz.com. Also on July 13, 2017, 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 August 3, 2017, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Paul M. DeCicco 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 contends as follows:
Complainant operates a job website and search engines under the INDEED mark, which it registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 3,141,242, registered Sept. 12, 2006).
Respondent’s <indeedjobz.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant’s INDEED mark because the domain name incorporates the mark in its entirety and merely adds the generic industry term “jobs” misspelled as “jobz,” as well as a generic top-level domain (gTLD), “.com.”
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is neither commonly known by the disputed domain name nor has Complainant authorized Respondent to use its INDEED mark. Respondent is not using the <indeedjobz.com> domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent uses <indeedjobz.com> to offer services identical to Complainant’s services. Respondent is merely trading off on the goodwill associated with Complainant and Complainant’s mark.
Respondent registered, and is using, the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent is attempting to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion as to the source, sponsorship or affiliation of its website. Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights prior to registration of the disputed domain name.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant has rights in the INDEED mark as evidenced by its registration of such mark with the USPTO.
Complainant’s rights in the INDEED mark existed prior to Respondent’s registration of the at-issue domain name.
Respondent uses <indeedjobz.com> to address a website offering services that compete with Complainant’s services
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 at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.
Complainant’s registration of its INDEED mark with the USPTO is sufficient to allow the Panel to find that Complainant has rights in a mark under the Policy. See T-Mobile USA, Inc. dba MetroPCS v. Ryan G Foo / PPA Media Services, FA 1627542 (Forum Aug. 9, 2015) (finding that Complainant has rights in the METROPCS mark through its registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office.).
The at-issue domain name consists of Complainant’s entire INDEED trademark followed by the generic term “jobz” with the top-level domain name “.com” appended thereto. The slight differences between the domain name and Complainant’s trademark are insufficient to distinguish one from the other for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). In fact, the term “jobz” in the domain name suggests Complainant’s jobs related website and thus adds to any domain name/trademark confusion. Therefore, the Panel finds that the at-issue <indeedjobz.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s INDEED mark. See e.g., Brown & Bigelow, Inc. v Site Ads Inc., FA0011000096127 (NAF Jan. 11, 2001) (finding domain <hoylecasino.com> confusingly similar to Complainant’s HOYLE mark, which was used and registered with the production of cards, games, and other gaming-type materials); see also, Rollerblade, Inc. v. McCrady, D2000-0429 (WIPO June 25, 2000) (finding that the top level of the domain name such as “.net” or “.com” does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar).
Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006). Absent contrary evidence of Policy ¶4(c) circumstances, or other evidence supporting a finding of Respondent’s having rights or legitimate interests in the domain name, Complainant’s prima facie showing acts conclusively.
Respondent lacks both rights and legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant’s trademark in any capacity and, as discussed below, there are no Policy ¶4(c) circumstances from which the Panel might find that Respondent has rights or interests in respect of the at-issue domain name.
WHOIS information for <indeedjobz.com> identifies the domain name’s registrant as “Ankit Bhardwaj.” Further, there is no evidence in the record which otherwise suggests that Respondent is known by the at-issue domain name. Therefore, the Panel concludes for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)that Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name. See Braun Corp. v. Loney, FA 699652 (Forum July 7, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain names where the WHOIS information, as well as all other information in the record, gave no indication that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain names, and the complainant had not authorized the respondent to register a domain name containing its registered mark).
Additionally, Respondent’s <indeedjobz.com> domain name is used to offer services identical to Complainant’s services. Respondent’s use of the at-issue domain name in this manner shows neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See 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).”)
Given the foregoing, Complainant satisfies its initial burden under Policy ¶4(a)(ii) and conclusively demonstrates Respondent’s lack of rights and lack of interests in respect of the at-issue domain name.
The at-issue domain name was registered and used in bad faith. As discussed below, Policy ¶4(b) specific bad faith circumstances as well as other circumstances lead the Panel to conclude that Respondent acted in bad faith pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
First and as discussed above regarding rights and legitimate interests, Respondent uses its confusingly similar <indeedjobz.com> domain name to compete with services offered under Complainant’s INDEED trademark. Respondent thereby demonstrates bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ (b)(iv). See CAN Financial Corporation v. William Thomson / CAN Insurance, FA1401001541484 (Forum Feb. 28, 2014) (finding that the respondent had engaged in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv), by using a confusingly similar domain name to attract Internet users to its own website where it sold competing insurance services).
Finally, the Panel finds that Respondent registered the <indeedjobz.com> domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s INDEED trademark. Respondent’s knowledge of Complainant’s mark, prior to registering <indeedjobz.com>, is apparent from the notoriety of Complainant’s trademark, from the juxtaposition of Complainant’s trademark with the suggestive term “jobz” in Respondent’s at-issue domain name, and from Respondent’s use of the domain name to address a website which offers services in competition with those offered by Complainant. Respondent’s prior knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the INDEED mark further indicates that Respondent registered and used the at-issue domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent had "actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name"); see also Yahoo! Inc. v. Butler, FA 744444 (Forum Aug. 17, 2006) (finding bad faith where the respondent was "well-aware of the complainant's YAHOO! mark at the time of registration).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <indeedjobz.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist
Dated: August 3, 2017
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page