Quora, Inc. v. Muhammad Kamran
Claim Number: FA1710001753004
Complainant is Quora, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Laura M. Franco of Winston & Strawn LLP, California, USA. Respondent is Muhammad Kamran (“Respondent”), Pakistan.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <quorasearch.com> (the Domain Name), 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.
Dawn Osborne of Palmer Biggs IP 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 <quorasearch.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 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@quorasearch.com. 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 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 name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant's contentions can be summarised as follows:
Complainant’s QUORA mark is unique and exclusively identifies Complainant and its goods and services. It is an arbitrary term invented by Complainant with no meaning. Complainant first used the QUORA mark in connection with its information and learning web site at www.quora.com at least as early as 2010. The QUORA mark is registered, inter alia, in the USA for software and computer related services.
The Domain Name registered in 2017 is confusingly similar to Complainant’s QUORA mark incorporating it in its entirety merely adding the generic word ‘search’ and the gTLD .com which does not distinguish the Domain Name from Complainant’s mark.
Respondent’s site presents as a single search field where visitors can enter a term of their choice. The likelihood of confusion is magnified by the fact that the authentic QUORA site also offers a search field. The search field offers at the Domain Name directly competes with Complainant’s authentic quora.com site by providing direct subject specific links to the question and answer pages on quora.com. When a search is performed the results also include click through advertisements.
Respondent has no connection with the QUORA name beyond his registration of the Domain Name. He does not have any permission from Complainant to use the name. Using a domain name containing a third party trade mark to point to click through adverts is not bona fide offering of goods or services or a non commercial or fair use. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name.
The Domain Name has been registered and used in bad faith. Respondent is intentionally attempting to attract Internet users to his own site for pecuniary gain. The fact that the Domain Name is used to link back to pages on the authentic QUORA site shows Respondent is aware of Complainant and its business.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant owns registered trade marks for QUORA , inter alia in the USA for software computer related services with first use recorded as 2011.
The Domain Name registered in 2017 has been pointed to a search field called a ‘Quora Search’ which is not connected with Complainant and is associated with links to pay per click advertisements.
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 Name in this Complaint combines Complainant’s QUORA mark (registered, inter alia, in the USA for computer related services with first use recorded as 2011), the generic term ‘search’ and the gTLD .com.
The addition of terms which are related to Complainant’s business and services supports a finding of confusing similarity. Accordingly the addition of this generic word ‘search’ does not serve to distinguish the Domain Name from Complainant’s QUORA mark bearing in mind that Complainant’s business is related to online information searches. See Abbott Laboratories v Miles White, FA 1646590 (Forum Dec 10, 2015) (holding that the addition of generic terms particularly terms pertaining to complainant’s business, do not adequately distinguish a disputed domain name from complainant’s mark under Policy 4 (a) (i).
The gTLD .com does not serve to distinguish the Domain Name from the QUORA mark, which is the distinctive component of the Domain Name. 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 Name is 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’s mark. Complainant has not authorised Respondent to use this mark. The use of the Domain Name is commercial linked also to pay per click advertisements 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 the domain name because “Respondent is competing in the same industry as Complainant . 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 Name to promote competing information searching services which are not connected with Complainant. This use of the Domain Name and links to the authentic QUORA site makes it more likely than not that Respondent was aware of the significance of the QUORA name and Complainant’s rights at the time of registration. The usage of Complainant’s QUORA mark which has a significant reputation in relation to information searching services is not fair as the site does not make it clear that there is no commercial connection with Complainant. As such it cannot amount to the bona fide offering of goods and services.
Further, use in relation to click through advertisements is not a bona fide offering of goods and services. See Danbyg Ejendomme A/S v lb Hansen/guerciotti FA 1504001613867 (Forum June 2, 2015)
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 Name 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 site is commercial and he is using it to make a profit from competing services and advertising links not associated with Complainant in a confusing manner. The specific combination of marks and services in the Domain Name and links to the authentic QUORA site at the Domain Name indicates Respondent was aware of Complainant’s rights at the time of registration. It seems clear that the use of Complainant’s mark in the Domain Name would cause people to associate the website at the Domain Name with Complainant and its business and services. Accordingly, the Panel holds that Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain Internet users to his website by creating likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s trade marks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the web site. This 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).) 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). There is, therefore, no need to consider additional grounds of bad faith.
As such, the Panel believe 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 <quorasearch.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Dawn Osborne, Panelist
Dated: November 7, 2017
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page