Quora, Inc. v. Peter Smith
Claim Number: FA1710001752999
Complainant is Quora, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Laura M. Franco of Winston & Strawn LLP, California, USA. Respondent is Peter Smith (“Respondent”), Isle of Man.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <wwwquora.co>, registered with GoDaddy.com, 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.
Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on October 10, 2017; the Forum received payment on October 10, 2017.
On October 11, 2017, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <wwwquora.co> 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 October 11, 2017, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of October 31, 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@wwwquora.co. Also on October 11, 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 November 1, 2017, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Sandra J. Franklin 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
1. Respondent’s <wwwquora.co> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s QUORA mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <wwwquora.co> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and uses the <wwwquora.co> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant uses the QUORA mark in connection with its popular collaborative, learning website located at www.quora.com. Complainant registered its QUORA mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 4,387,898, registered Aug. 20, 2013).
Respondent registered the <wwwquora.co> domain name on March 27, 2017, and uses it to resolve to a third party site called Markets World, and to phish for 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 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 Panel finds that Complainant has established rights in the QUORA mark through its registration with the USPTO. See Humor Rainbow, Inc. v. James Lee, FA 1626154 (Forum Aug. 11, 2015) (stating, “There exists an overwhelming consensus amongst UDRP panels that USPTO registrations are sufficient in demonstrating a complainant’s rights under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) and its vested interests in a mark. . . . Due to Complainant’s attached USPTO registration on the principal register at Exhibit 1, the Panel agrees that it has sufficiently demonstrated its rights per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”).
Respondent’s <wwwquora.co> domain name contains the QUORA mark in its entirety and merely adds the letters “www” and the ccTLD “.co.” Similar changes in a registered mark have failed to sufficiently distinguish a domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶4(a)(i). See Little League Baseball, Inc. v. Domain Manager / samirnet -domain names for sale, FA 1651999 (Forum Jan. 18, 2016) (concluding that the addition of “www” takes advantage of a common typing error, and does not distinguish the domain name from the mark or overcome a finding of confusingly similar); see also Crocs, Inc. v. [Registrant], FA 1043196 (Forum Sept. 2, 2007) (determining that “the addition of a ccTLD is irrelevant to the Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis, as a top-level domain is required of all domain names”). The Panel thus finds that Respondent’s <wwwquora.co> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s QUORA mark.
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶4(a)(i).
Once Complainant makes a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006) (holding that the complainant must first make a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under UDRP ¶ 4(a)(ii) before the burden shifts to the respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in a domain name); see also AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Forum Sept. 25, 2006) (“Complainant must first make a prima facie showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names, which burden is light. If Complainant satisfies its burden, then the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain names.”).
Complainant contends that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <wwwquora.co> domain name. Complainant alleges that Respondent has never been legitimately affiliated with Complainant, has never been known by the disputed domain name prior to its registration, and Complainant has not given Respondent permission to use the disputed domain name. The WHOIS identifies “Peter Smith” as the registrant of the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the Panel finds that there is no evidence to show that Respondent is commonly known by the <wwwquora.co> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). 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 domain names, and the complainant had not authorized the respondent to register a domain name containing its registered mark); see also Navistar International Corporation v. N Rahmany, FA1505001620789 (Forum June 8, 2015) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name where the complainant had never authorized the respondent to incorporate its NAVISTAR mark in any domain name registration).
Complainant provides a screenshot of the resolving webpage, called “Markets World” and argues that Respondent uses the disputed domain name to offer services in direct competition with Complainant. Using a confusingly similar domain name that resolves to a competing webpage is not a bona fide offering of goods or services. See Upwork Global Inc. v. Shoaib Malik, FA 1654759 (Forum February 3, 2016) (finding that Complainant provides freelance talent services, and that Respondent competes with Complainant by promoting freelance talent services through the disputed domain’s resolving webpage, which is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor is it a legitimate noncommercial or fair use). Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).
Complainant argues that Respondent engages in a phishing scheme to obtain personal and financial information from users. Phishing schemes are not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See Wells Fargo & Co. v. WhoisGuard, FA 1103650 (Forum Dec. 13, 2007) (“There is no dispute that respondent previously used the disputed domain name to obtain personal and financial information from Internet customers of complainant. This fraudulent use [is] known as ‘phishing’”). Complainant demonstrates that Internet users who attempt to sign up on the webpage resolving from the disputed domain name are asked to enter information such as their name, address, date of birth, and income level, before then being prompted to enter their personal credit card or money transfer information. Complainant alleges this use allows Respondent to fraudulently receive users’ personal and financial information. The Panel agrees and finds that Respondent attempts to phish for information do not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).
Complainant argues that Respondent registered the <wwwquora.co> domain name in bad faith as Respondent has a history of registering confusingly similar domain names, and provides a list of prior UDRP decision in which Respondent was found to have acted in bad faith. A complainant may use prior adverse UDRP decisions against a respondent in the current proceeding to evince bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). See Fandango, LLC v. 21562719 Ont Ltd, FA1209001464081 (Forum November 2, 2012) (“Respondent’s past conduct and UDRP history establishes a pattern of registered domain names in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii).”). Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith based on Respondent’s prior history of registering confusingly similar domain names.
Additionally, Complainant argues that Respondent registered and uses the <wwwquora.co> domain name in bad faith by disrupting Complainant’s business and creating a likelihood of confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the disputed domain name. Using a disputed domain name that disrupts a complainant’s business and trades upon the goodwill of a complainant for commercial gain can evince bad faith under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) & (iv). See Health Republic Insurance Company v. Above.com Legal, FA1506001622088 (Forum July 10, 2015) (“The use of a domain name’s resolving website to host links to competitors of a complainant shows intent to disrupt that complainant’s business, thereby showing bad faith in use and registration under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).”); see also Xylem Inc. and Xylem IP Holdings LLC v. YinSi BaoHu YiKaiQi, FA1504001612750 (Forum May 13, 2015) (“The Panel agrees that Respondent’s use of the website to display products similar to Complainant’s, imputes intent to attract Internet users for commercial gain, and finds bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).”). Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent disrupts Complainant’s business and attempts to commercially benefit off Complainant’s mark in bad faith under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) & (iv).
Respondent also engages in a phishing scheme to obtain personal or financial information from Internet users. The Panel finds that this is further evidence of Respondent’s bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Klabzuba Oil & Gas, Inc. v. LAKHPAT SINGH BHANDARI, FA1506001625750 (Forum July 17, 2015) (“Respondent uses the <klabzuba-oilgas.com> domain to engage in phishing, which means Respondent registered and uses the domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”).
Complainant lastly claims that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the QUORA mark. Actual knowledge can adequately evince bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Univision Comm'cns Inc. v. Norte, FA 1000079 (Forum Aug. 16, 2007) (rejecting the respondent's contention that it did not register the disputed domain name in bad faith since the panel found that the respondent had knowledge of the complainant's rights in the UNIVISION mark when registering the disputed domain name). Complainant contends that Respondent must have had actual knowledge of the because of Complainant’s registration of its mark with the USPTO; because of the high profile of Complainant and its QUORA mark within the USA and throughout the world since at least as early as 2010; and because the QUORA mark is a fanciful term that has no relation to Respondent or the Markets World website that resolves from the disputed domain name. The Panel agrees and finds further 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 <wwwquora.co> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist
Dated: November 2, 2017
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page