Quora, Inc. v. Shashank Vaishnav / Vatsana Technologies Pvt Ltd
Claim Number: FA1708001743690
Complainant is Quora, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Laura M. Franco of Winston & Strawn LLP, California, USA. Respondent is Shashank Vaishnav / Vatsana Technologies Pvt Ltd (“Respondent”), India.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <quoraa.info>, <bestofquoraa.info>, and <bestofquoraa.com> (the Domain Names’) , registered with Wild West Domains, LLC.
The undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his or her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Dawn Osborne of Palmer Biggs IP as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on August 8, 2017; the Forum received payment on August 8, 2017.
On August 14, 2017, Wild West Domains, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <quoraa.info>, <bestofquoraa.info>, <bestofquoraa.com> domain names are registered with Wild West Domains, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Wild West Domains, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Wild West Domains, 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 August 21, 2017, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 11, 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@quoraa.info, postmaster@bestofquoraa.info, and postmaster@bestofquoraa.com. Also on August 21, 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 September 14, 2017 , pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Dawn Osborne of Palmer Biggs IP 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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant’s contentions can be summarised as follows:
Complainant first used the QUORA mark in commerce in connection with its information sharing and learning web site located at www.quora.com at least as early as 2010. It has since expanded its services and registrations to cover mobile apps, software and related services. It is the owner, inter alia, of registrations in the US and India for QUORA for computer software and computer related services.
The Domain Names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s QUORA mark in that they incorporate that mark in its entirety and the addition of a gTLD will not overcome a finding of confusing similarity. Similarly including a laudatory and generic term like ‘best of’ does nothing to distinguish domain names from a complainant’s mark. The Domain Names contain an extra letter ‘a’ at the end of the mark QUORA forming a subtle misspelling of the mark which remains confusing as Complainant also owns quoraa.com.
Respondent did not register the Domain Names until March 2017 nearly 7 years after Complainant began using the QUORA mark in commerce.
Respondent’s name is not QUORA. Each of the Domain Names resolve to another information services web site owned by Respondent called Witty Feed. Complainant has not authorised Respondent to use its QUORA mark. Respondent’s use of the Domain Names to derive revenue based on the false suggestion of affiliation with or approval by Complainant is not a bona fide offering of goods or a legitimate non commercial or fair use. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names.
Diverting consumers to Respondent’s own web site is bad faith registration and use under 4 (b)(iii) and 4 (b)(iv) of the Policy. Respondent’s conduct indicates actual knowledge of Complainant and its business. Respondent owns many domain names including those containing the names of other well known brands and products which also direct consumers to the Witty Feed web site owned by Respondent.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant is the owner, inter alia, of registrations in the USA and India for QUORA for computer software and related services with first use recorded in 2010 for its information sharing and learning website.
The Domain Names registered in 2017 have been directed to an information services web site owned by Respondent, Witty Feed.
DISCUSSION
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 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.”).
Identical and/or Confusingly Similar
The Domain Names in this Complaint combine Complainant’s QUORA mark (registered in the USA and India for computer software and related services with first use recorded as 2010), the extra letter ‘a’ and/or the generic term ‘best of’ and the gTLD .com or .info.
Panels have held that simple misspellings where the final letter of a mark is duplicated is insufficient to distinguish the disputed domain name from a mark. See Paperless Inc. v ICS Inc., FA 1629515 (Forum Aug 17, 2015). The addition of an extra ‘a’ to Complainant’s mark in the Domain Names does not distinguish them from Complainant’s QUORA mark.
The addition of the generic term ‘best of’ in <bestofquoraa.info>, and <bestofquoraa.com> does not serve to distinguish these domain names from Complainant’s QUORA mark. See Abbott Laboratories v Miles White, FA 1646590 (Forum Dec 10, 2015) (holding that the addition of generic terms do not adequately distinguish a disputed domain name from complainant’s mark under Policy 4 (a) (i).)
The gTLDs .com or .info do not serve to distinguish the Domain Names from the QUORA mark, which is the distinctive component of the Domain Names. See Red Hat Inc. v Haecke FA 726010 (Forum July 24, 2006) (concluding that the redhat.org domain name is identical to 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 finds that the Domain Names are confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights for the purpose of the Policy.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
Respondent does not appear to be commonly known by ‘Quora’. Complainant has not authorised Respondent to use its QUORA mark. The use of the Domain Names is commercial apparently deriving revenues from advertising and so cannot be legitimate non commercial use.
Panels have found that a respondent is not using a disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate non commercial or fair use if it uses the name to divert Internet users to a web site competing with Complainant under its mark. See Coryn Group Inc v Media Insight, FA 19895 9 (Forum Dec. 5, 2003). The Panel may determine that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in a domain name because ‘Respondent is competing in the same industry as Complainant and under the same name.’ See Am. Tool & Machining, Inc. v EZ Hitch Inc, FA 113961 (Forum July 16, 2002)
It is clear from the evidence that Respondent has used the sites attached to the Domain Names to promote competing information services which are not connected with Complainant. Respondent has also registered other domain names containing famous marks and directed them to its same information services page. It is, therefore, more likely than not that Respondent was aware of the significance of the QUORA name and Complainant’s rights at the time of registration and has registered it to divert consumers looking for Complainant to Respondent’s sites. The usage of Complainant’s QUORA mark which has a reputation, in relation to information services not connected with Complainant, is not fair as the sites connected to the Domain Names do not make it clear that there is no connection with Complainant. As such it cannot amount to the bona fide offering of goods and services.
Respondent has not answered this Complaint and has not provided any legitimate reason why it should be able to use Complainant’s trade marks in this way. As such the Panel finds that Respondent does not have rights or a legitimate interest in the Domain Names and that Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
As determined above Respondent's use of the sites connected to the Domain Names is commercial and he is, therefore using them to make a profit from competing services not associated with Complainant in a confusing manner. Respondent’s activities suggest that he was aware of Complainant’s rights at the time of registration. It seems clear that the use of Complainant’s mark in the Domain Names would cause people to associate the websites at the Domain Names with Complainant and its business and services. See also CAN Financial Corporation v William Thomson/CAN Insurance, FA1401001541484 (Forum Feb 28, 2014)(finding that 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 site where it offered competing services).
Accordingly, the Panel holds that Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain Internet users to his website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s trade marks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of Respondent’s web sites.
Respondent’s conduct also appears designed to disrupt the business of a competitor. See Fitness International, LLC v Alistair Swodeck/Victor and Murray, FA 1506001623644 (Forum July 9, 2015) (where respondent offered the same services as Complainant and it was held this disrupted Complainant’s business under Policy 4 (b)(iii).) Indeed, the use of ‘quoraa’ with an extra ‘a’ appears to be a form of typosquatting targeting Complainant. Such activities have also held by panels to be disruptive behavior under 4 (b)(iii).
As such, the Panel holds that Complainant has made out its case that the Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith under paragraphs 4 (b)(iii) and (iv) and has satisfied the third limb of the Policy.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <quoraa.info>, <bestofquoraa.info>, and <bestofquoraa.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Dawn Osborne , Panelist
Dated: September 26, 2017
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page